"f 


•»#^ 


^^  \^s.t  Mhtologicitt  ^^ 


PRINCETON,  N.  J, 


**« 


r« 


Presented    b7\^0^~\?^vA\  ^^cAr^TX)  .A^^^  ^^• 

BV    825     .W542 

Wilberforce,    Robert    Isaac,      ^ 

1802-1857.  j 

The  doctrine  of  the  Holy 

Eucharist 


&L 


THE  DOCTRINE 


THE   HOLY  EUCHARIST. 


Ji^A^ihu^k^ 


THE    DOCTRINE 


OF 


THE  HOLY  EUCHARIST. 


BY  THE  LATE 


"Hob-.-^T.    ^ 


ARCHDEACON^AVILBERFORCE,   A.M. 

A.  ' 


"'!:^piarov  tare  /cat    -napa  Xpiarov  to  dyiov  ffanTiafM,  Kai  rrjs  ixvaTmfjs 
(iiXoYias  j)  Svvafj,is  Ik  rrjs  a-yias  tjIUv  dve(pv  aapKos." — S.  Cyril.  Alex. 

"  lu  illo  Sacramento  Christus  est;  quia  corpus  est  Christi." — S.  Ambros. 


NEW   YOEK: 

E.  AND  J.    B.  YOUNG    AND    00., 
COOPER  UNION,    FOURTH   AVENUE. 

1885. 


CONTENTS. 


INTRODUCTION. 


This  work  founded  on  an  appeal  to  Holy  Scripture  as  interpreted  by 
Antiquity. 

Unanimity  of  the  undivided  Church  respecting  the  Holy  Eucharist. 

The  authors  preceding  or  contemporary  with  the  four  first  General  Coun- 
cils mainly  referred  to. 

The  subjects,  which  it  is  proposed  to  explain,  how  limited     .  Pages  1 — 5 


CHAPTER   I. 

CONSECRATION  THE  ESSENTIAL  CHARACTERISTIC  OF  THE  HOLY 
EUCHARIST. 

The  Words  of  Institution  imply  three  things,  Subject,  Predicate,  Copula. 
The  Subject,  the  elements  as  consecrated. 
This  involves  reality  of  Consecration — 
as  affirmed  by  Ancient  Church — 

as  witnessed  by  the  rule  that  no  one,  save  a  Priest,  can  conse- 
crate      Pages  5 — 11 

Contrast  afforded  by  Baptism  ; 

The  validity  whereof  does  not  depend  on  Consecration. 

Why  Consecration  not  more  insisted  upon  by  English  Divines  Pages  11 — 14 


CHAPTER  II. 

EFFECT  OF  CONSECRATION,   THAT  THE  BLESSING  IS  CONVEYED  THROUGH 

THE  ELEMENTS.  (^ 

The  consecrated  elements  the  means  through  which  the  gift  is  conveyed  in 
the  Holy  Eucharist Page  14 


vi  CONTENTS. 

Sacraments  Moral,  not  Phyxical  Instruments. 

As  belonging  to  the  order  of  grace,  not  the  order  of  nature 

Pages  14 — 17 
Three. principles,  on  which  the  blessing  bestowed  in  the  Holy  Eucharist 
may  be  supposed  to  depend  : — 

Ist,  The  value  of  the  gift  bestowed  (which  implies  that  the  gift  is 

through  the  elements). 
2ndly,  The  mere  intention  of  the  Giver  (Calvin's  system). 
3rdly,  The  mere  disposition  of  the  receiver  (Zuinglius's  system). 
Modem  Systems  afford  negative  proof  of  the  necessity  of  the  Ist  principle 

{i.e.  that  the  elements  a  mean). 
Zuinglius's  Theory — 

that  the  benefit  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  depends  on  the  remem- 
brance of  Christ  dead,  not  the  presence  of  Christ  living — 
and  therefore  that  the  consecrating  principle  is  merely  the  rfis- 

posit ion  oi  ^e  receiver Pages  17 — 20 

This  theory  untenable — 

as  destroying  the  sacredness  of  the  Holy  Eucharist — 
as  derogating  from  the  truth  of  Our  Lord's  Personality  Pages  20 — 22 
Calvin's  Tlieory — 

that  the  benefit  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  depends  merely  upon  the 

intention  of  the  Girer,  i.e.  Almighty  God — 
of  which  the  elements  are  a  seal  or  pledge — 

which  pledge  is  limited  by  God's  Absolute  Decree.     Pages  23 — 27 
This  theory  untenable,  as  involving  the  dogma  of  arbitrary  Peprobation. 
Therefore  since  the  benefit  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  does  not  depend  exclu- 
sively upon  the  receiver  (Zuinglius)  or   intention  of  Giver  (Calvin) — 
though  both  of  these  notions  included — there  must  be  value  in  the  gift 

itself Pages  27—28 

Two  Corollaries.  1st,  Since  Zuinglius  and  Calvin  maintain  consecration 
to  be  invalid,  because  "no  gift  is  bestowed  through  the  elements," 
they  are  Avitnesses  that  if  consecration  icere  valid,  a  gift  icould  he  he- 
stowed  through  elemeids. 

2ndly,  Since  the  dogma  of  Absolute  Decrees  is  the  comer-stone  of 
Calvin's  sacramental  theory ;  its  abandonment  identifies  his  system 
with  Zuinglianism.  Tliis  fact  illustrated  by  the  decay  of  belief,  both 
among  Foreign  Protestants,  and  in  England,  where  his  phraseology 
(j.f^.  that  the  elements  are  only  seals  or  title  deeds)  had  been  insensibly 
introduced.     Hooker  and  Waterland Pages  28 — 31 


CHAPTER  III. 
TESTIMONY  OF  THE  ANCIENT   CHURCH   TO   THE  EFFECT   OF  CONSECRATION. 

The  Ancient  Church  affords  Positive  proof  that  the  gift  bestowed  in  the 

Holy  Eucharist  is  bestowed  through  the  elements. 
I.  The  Ancient  Liturgies — not  adequately  appreciated  in  the  sixteenth 

century. 

Ist,  Antiquity  of  the  Ancient  Liturgies — manuscripts  of  the  com- 


^ 


CONTENTS.  vii 

mencement  of  eighth  century — Palimpsests.  Division  of  parties 
fixes  their  text,  as  employed  in  the  Nicene  age.  St.  James's 
and  St.  Mark's  Liturgy.  St.  Basil's  and  St.  Chrysostom's. 
Roman,  Spanish,  and  Gallic.  Agreement  of  these  different 
families   of  Liturgies,   shows    their   general  framework  to  be  of 

Apostolic  authority Pages  32 — 41 

2ndly,  Number  of  Ancient  Liturgies Pages  41 — 42 

Srdly,  Purpose  of  the  Ancient  Liturgies  to  show  that  the  Holy 
Eucharist  is  a  real  action,  of  which  the  elements  are  the  subject. 
The  original  consecration  of  the  elements  by  Our  Lord  Himself, 
perpetuated  by  Him  through  the  ivords  of  Institution,  as  pro- 
nounced by  His  ministers.     Calvinistic  Services  make  the  words 

of  Institution  exegetical,  not  effective Pages  42 — 46 

Monophysite  Liturgies,  in  which  the  words  of  Institution  not  re- 
cited, rest  the  action  on  the  Invocation  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  His 
descent   upon   the    elements.      Calvinistic  Services  represent  the 

spirits  of  men  to  ascend  to  Heaven Pages  47 — 50 

'  II.  Ancient  Writers  speak  of  a  change  in  the  elements.  Discipline  of 
secrecy.  No  restraint  on  Catechetical  instruction-;-St.  Ambrose — St. 
Cyril — St.  Gregory  Nyssen — St.  Gaudentius  ....  Pages  50 — 54 
III.  Ancient  xisages  show  that  the  elements  supposed  to  undergo  a  change. 
The  Holy  Eucharist  sent  as  a  sign  of  communion — Carried  to  the  sick — 
Reserved  to  be  partaken  at  home — and  reserved  in  Churches — whole 
Christ  supposed  to  be  communicated  through  every  part  of  either 
element — Received  fasting — and  with  reverence  .  .  .  Pages  54 — 61 
Conclusion — Consecration  a  mockery  unless  the  elements  rendered  sacred 

Pages  62—63 


CHAPTER   IV. 

THE  GIFT  BESTOWED  IN   THE  HOLT  EUCHARIST  IS  THE  PRESENCE  OF 
CHRIST. 

.The  Predicate  in  Our  Lord's  words  of  Institution,  His  Body  and  Blood. 

Our  Lord's  Humanity  here  referred  to.    His  Godhead  present  also,  but  the 

Predicate,  affirmed  to  be  present,  is,  "that  Body,  that  Flesh,  lohich  icas 

horn  of  the  Virgin  Mary."    Testimony  of  ancient  writers       Pages  63 — 66 

Objection  of  Rationalists,  that  the  Presence  of  Our  Lord's  Body  impossible, 

or  at  least  so  imprdbahle,  that  it  cannot  be  believed.     But, 

Ist,  The  Presence  of  Our  Lord's  Body  not  rightly  called  impossible, 
considering  our  ignorance  of  the  nature  of  material  substance — Our 
Lord's  Body  the  Body  of  God,  which  derives  new  qualities  from 

oneness  with  Deity Pages  66 — 68 

2ndly,  The  Presence  of  Our  Lord's  Body  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  not 
improbable,  considering  that  His  Body  is  the  channel  of  grace  to 
His  brethren — and  the  antidote  to  the  flesh  of  the  old  Adam — 
Ancient  testimonies  to  the  efficacy  of  Our  Lord's  Flesh — Diversity 
between  the  Holy  Eucharist  and  Baptism.     The  consecration  of 


CONTENTS. 

the  elements  not  essential  in  Baptism,  because  Onr  Lord  is  only 

present  by  spiritual  power Pucjes  69 — 75 

Ancient  testimonies  retjuire  to  be  stated  in  an  inverted  order.  The 
Incarnation  of  Our  Lord  was  deduced  formerly  from  the  reverence 
due  to  His  Humanity  ;  at  present  the  efficacy  of  His  Humanity  is 
a  conclusion  from  the  Incarnation.  Our  Lord's  Presence  is  thought 
improbable,  because  it  is  supposed  to  be  unprcjitahle — Erasmus — 
Johnson — But  it  is  the  means,  whereby  the  purposes  of  the  Incar- 
nation take  effect Pages  75 — 79 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE   RELATION   BETWEEN    THE  GIFT    BESTOWED    IN   THE   HOLY  EUCHARIST 
AND  THE  ELEMENTS. 

Copula,  or  connexion  between  Sid)ject  and  Predicate,  in  the  words  of  In- 
stitution, either  that  of  identity,  or  that  of  represenfafioii. 
Repregentation  depends  either  on  likeness,  or  authority — But  these  the 

systems,  respectively,  of  Zuinglius  and  Calvin. 
Identity,  in  this  case,  neither  personal  nor  physical,  but  sacramental. 
Sacramentum  and  res  sacrameuti  united  by  consecration  into  a  com- 
pound whole Pages  79 — 85 

Four  erroneous  systems  to  be  avoided  : — 

1st,  Omission  of  res  sacrameuti,  or  inward  reality — Error  of  Zuin- 
glius. Our  Lord's  Presence  considered  symhalicnl,  because  nothing 
believed  to  be  present,  but  the  sign  or  symbol  of  His  Body 

Pages  85—86 
2ndly,  Omission  of  the  sacrameutum,  or  external  part — Error  of  the 
Capernaites — Anastasius  Siuaita.  This  omission  censured  in  the 
•28th  Article — but  not  intended  by  Aquinas,  or  the  Council  of 
Trent.  Sense  conversant  only  with  accidents — By  substance  the 
Church  of  England  means  the  sacramentum  ;  the  Church  of  Rome 

the  res  sacrameuti Pages  86 — 90 

Srdly,  Confusion  of  the  sacramentum,  and  res  sacrameuti.  Error  of 
Luther.  His  theory  of  Justification  inconsistent  with  the  doctrine 
of  sacraments.  He  maintained  the  reality  of  Our  Lord's  Presence, 
but  denied  its  e(licacy — admitted  a  res  sacrameuti,  but  dealt  with 
it  as  if  it  were  an  emblem  only — and  were  designed  merely  to  give 
impressiveness  to  ceremony — Consubstantiation  .  .  Pages  90 — 97 
4thly,  Separation  of  the  sacramentum  and  res  sacrameuti.  Error  of 
C^alvin.  He  admitted  the  influence  of  Our  Lord's  Humanity,  but 
denied  its  Presence — allowed  the  existence  of  a  inritui  sacrameuti, 
but  denied  the  presence  of  the  res  sacrameuti.  The  rirtus  sacra- 
meuti suppo.sed  to  be  joined  to  the  sacramentum  merely  by  the 
absolute  ilecree  of  God — which  involved  the  dogma  of  reprobation 
and  conflicted  with  the  Church's  custom  of  delivering  the  ele- 
ments as  an  obsignation  of  Christ's  Presence  to  each  iudividual. 
(The  case   of  elect  persons,  who  come  to  the  altar  before  con- 


CONTENTS.  ix 

version,  like  the  difficulties  of  adult  Baptism,  does  not  require  de- 
termination.)  Pages  98 — 106 

The  relation  between  the  sacramentum  and  res  sacramenti  leads  to  three 
modes,  in  which  Christ's  Presence  may  be  understood.  Real — imply- 
ing the  presence  of  a  res  sacramenti.  Virtual — implying  only  a  virtus 
sacramenti.     Symbolical — implying  only  a  sacramentum  or  symbol 

Pages  103—107 

CHAPTER  VI. 

OUR  lord's  presence  in  the  holt  EUCHARIST  IS  REAL,   AND  NOT 
MERELY  SYMBOLICAL  OR  VIRTUAL. 

Christ's  Presence  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  supernatural,  not  natural.     The 
natural  Presence  of  Christ's  glorified  Body  in  heaven  conformable,  but 
not  subject,  to  the  laws  of  material  existence      .     .     .  Pages  108 — 110 
Supernatural  Presence  of  Christ's  Body  in  Holy  Eucharist  testified — 
by  His  own  promises  ; — 
by  His  appearances  after  His  resurrection. 
This  manifold  Presence — 

a  special  privilege  bestowed  on  His  manhood  through  its  union 

with  Godhead ; — 
but  not  om?iipresence,which  is  peculiar  to  Godhead  Pages  110 — 115 
Christ's  Presence  sacramewial,  and  not  sensible.     The  sacramentum  an  ob- 
ject of  sense  ;  Our  Lord's  Body  the  res  sacramenti.     Place  and  Form 
conditions  of  Our  Lord's  Body  as  present  naturally  in  heaven — when 
present  supernaturally,  or  as  the  res  sacramenti,  it  takes  place  and  form 

from  the  elements Pages  115 — 117 

Christ's  Presence  Beal — as  being  the  res  sacramenti,  through  which  the 
benefits  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  are  bestowed.  Supernatural  Presence 
as  the  res  sacramenti  not  impossible — resembles  a  dynamic  presence, 
yet  is  the  essential  or  substantial  presence  of  Christ's  Body.  A  conse- 
quence from  the  Incarnation Pages  117 — 123 

Christ's  Body  may  b6  said  to  be  present  in  Baptism,  because  He  is  pre- 
sent ;  but  His  Presence  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  through  the  Presence 
of  His  Body.  In  Baptism  promises  are  attached  to  the  ordinance  at 
large  ;  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  to  the  inward  part,  or  res  sacramenti 

Pages  123—125 
Real,  Virtual,  and  Symbolical  Presence  contrasted      .     .  Pages  125 — 126 


CHAPTER   VII. 

OUR  lord's  presence  in  the  holy  EUCHARIST  SHOWN  TO  BE  REAL, 
AND  NOT  MERELY  SYMBOLICAL  OR  VIRTUAL,  BY  REFERENCE  TO  THE 
SIXTH  CHAPTER  OF  ST.  JOHN. 

Our  Lord's  Presence  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  shown  to  be  real  by  Holy 
Scripture. 


X  CONTENTS. 

St.    John    vi.    likely   to    be    a    prophetic    announcement    of    the    Holy 
Eucharist — 

as  corresponding  with  the  general  tenor  of  this  Gospel : — 
as  analogous  to  the  mention  of  Baptism  in  St.  John,  cap.  iii. 

Pages  127—132 

The  Chapter  treats,  first,  of  Our  Lord's  Mediation  at  large,  vv.  30 — 

50,  and  then  of  the  communication  of  His   Flesh    and    Blood, 

VT.  51—58 I'arjes  132—133 

Those  who  deny  that  verses  51 — 58  are  a  prophetic  explanation  of  the 
Holy  Eucharist,  maintain  that  to  eat  Our  Lord's  Flesh  and  Blood 
would  be  understood  by  His  hearers  to  mean — 
either  to  profit  by  His  death — 
or  to  receive  His  doctrines. 
But  the  first  interpretation  is  untenable,  because — 

to  drink  hinorl  must  have  seemed  unintelligible  to  Jews — 
and  the  application  of  such  phrases  to  Our  Lord's  sacrifice  implies 
previous  reference  to  the  Holy  Eucharist. 
The  second  interpretation  is  untenable,  because — 

the  expressions  neither  rcere,  nor  could  he,  so  understood  by  Jews — 

nor  were  so  understood  by  the  early  Christians    .  Pages  133 — 140 

Whitby's  quotations  from  ancient  writers  are  mere  applications  of  Our 

Lord's    words,   and    therefore    admit   the   principle,   that   spiritual   is 

founded  on  sacramental  communion Pages  140 — 143 

Waterland's  theory  is  that  the  ancient  writers  only  connected  Our  Lord's 
words  with  the  Holy  Eucharist  by  application  :  but 

such  application  assumes  the  efficacy  of  Our  Lord's  Flesh,  which 

implies  reference  to  the  Holy  Eucharist : — 
and  all  ancient  writers  refer  to  Holy  Eucharist  as  the  first  object 

of  Our  Lord's  words  : — 
and  the  earliest  commentators  on  St.  John's  Gospel,  i.e.  St.  Chry- 
sostom,   St.   Augustin,   St.    Cyril   (the   last   sanctioned   by  the 
General  Council  of  Ephesus),  interpret  Our  Lord's  words  of  the 

Holy  Eucharist Pages  143—149 

Later  interpretations  of  this  Chapter  introduced  to  support  theories ; 
Caietan's  to  oppose  the  Bohemians  : — 
Luther's  because  he  denied  efficacy  of  Holy  Eucharist 

Pages  149—151 
Our  Lord's  Presence  shown  by  this  Chapter  to  be — 

Supernatural:  For  the  Spirit,  i.e.  Our  Lord's  Divine  nature,  gives 

its  efficacy  to  His  Flesh Pages  151 — 152 

Ileal :  For  His  Porly  is  said  to  be  the  medium  of  His  benefits ; 
and  His  Manhood  to  be  communicated  to  men  suhstaniiaUy,  as 
His  Godhead  is  derived  from  the  Father  .  .  Pages  152 — 155 
Sacramental:  For  the  statement  of  those  benefits,  which  the  res 
sacramenti,  or  thing  signified,  is  fitted  to  bestow,  implies  the 
efficacy  of  consecration. — St.  Augustin  discriminated  from  Calvin 

Pages  155—159 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

TESTIMONY    OF  ANTIQUITY,   THAT    OUR    LORD's    PRESENCE    IN    THE    HOLY 
EUCHARIST  IS  NOT  MERELY  SYMBOLICAL  OR  VIRTUAL. 

The  Scriptural  statements  of  Our  Lord's  Presence  in  the  Holy  Eucharist 
are  explained  by  the  Fathers Pages  159 — 160 

I.  Symbolical,  or  Figurative  Presence  of  Christ  (as  maintained  by  Zuin- 

glius),  would  mean  that  He  was  only  an  object  to  men's  thoughts — His 
Body  not  really  present,  but  really  absent.  This  not  accordant  with 
the  statements  of  the  Fathers,  that  Our  Lord's  Presence  a  mystery 

Pages  160—163 
Objection,  that  Holy  Eucharist  spoken  of  by  Fathers  as  an  antitype  of 
Christ's  Body. 

Answer — the  antitype  not  the  Holy  Eucharist  as  a  ivhole,  but  the 
sacramentmn,  or  external  sign  only.  Those  who  speak  of  the 
Holy  Eucharist  as  an  antitype,  speak  of  it  as  a  reality  also — a  sign, 
but  not  a  sign  only.  The  sacramentuni  the  type  of  the  res  sacra- 
menti — Tertullian — St.  Facundus — St.  Augustin  Pages  163 — 172 

II.  Virtual  Presence  introduced  by  Calvin,  as  something  opposed  to 
Symbolical.  But  unless  the  supernatural  presence  of  Our  Lord's  Body 
is  admitted,  the  action  must  be  that  of  His  Godhead,  not  of  His  Man- 
hood, which  leads  back  to  Zuinglianism Pages  172 — 175 

Virtual,  and  Virtue,  ambiguous  terms.  Virtual  Presence  would  mean  that 
Our  Lord's  Body  may  be  said  to  be  present,  because  He  Himself  is  pre- 
sent :  i.  e.  that  His  Personal  Presence  is  equivalent  to,  or  implies,  the  pre- 
sence of  His  Body — Presence  by  Virtue  would  mean  that  Our  Lord's 
Flesh  produces  an  effect  through  its  inherent  power  .  Pages  175 — 176 
Neither  hypothesis  really  held  by  Calvin  : — 

not  the  last — for  it  would  imply  that  Our  Lord's  Flesh  is  endued 
with  supernatural  qualities  by  oneness  with  Godhead,  and  so 
would  approximate  to  the  idea  of  a  supernatural  presence — 
not  the  first — fgr  it  would  imply  that  specific  gifts  are  bestowed  in 

the  Christian  covenant Pages  176 — 179 

These  hypotheses  deceptive — producing  a  shoiv  of  agreement  among  those 
who  diifer  in  truth — and  leading  to  an  unfair  use  of  ancient  authors. 
Albertinus.  Passages  which  imply  a  mere  Symbolical  Presence  not 
more  consistent  with  Virtual,  than  with  Eeal  Presence  Pages  179 — 182 
Neither  hypothesis  comes  up  to  the  language  of  Antiquity,  which  held 
that  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  Our  Lord's  Flesh  was  the  medium  through 
which  He  bestowed  His  gifts  ;  i.e.  that  Christ  was  present  there 
ffimseZ/,  because  of  the  presence  of  His  i?of/?/  .  .  .  Pages  182 — 186 
Baptism  held  to  have  only  a  virtual  presence  of  Christ,  because  He  Himself 
was  present  there  by  spiritual  power.  Therefore  consecration  not 
necessary  in  Baptism — the  element  not  said  to  be  changed — Christ's 
Body  said  to  be  present  only  by  implication,  because  of  the  presence  of 
Himself Pages  187—191 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER   IX. 

THE  TESTIMONY  OF  ANTIQUITY  TO  THE  DOCTRINE  OF   THE  REAL 
PRESENCE. 

Belief  in  Real  Presence,  as  a  positive  fact,  shows  itself  in  various  shapes 
in  the  Fathers.     Five  schools,  which  used  different  expressions,  but 

entertained  one  idea Pages  191 — 192 

First,  or  Ante-Nicene  School,  spoke  simply  of  our  Lord's  Presence 

Pages  192—194 
Second,  or  Eastern  School,  dwelt  on  the  change  cf  elements.     But  if  a 
common  change  were  admitted,  there  was  danger  lest  the  inward  part 
should  be  supposed  to  be — 

either  some  new  Body  superadded  to  that  of  Christ ; 
or  to  be  corruptible : 
and  lest  the  outward  part  should  be  forgotten,  to  be — 
a  type  or  sign  of  the  inward  part ; — 

and  to  supply  bodily  nourishment Pages  194 — 200 

Third,  or  Anti-Eutychian  School,  supplied  a  guard  against  such  mistakes 
respecting  the  outward  part,  or  sacramentum.  For  it  maintained  the 
existence  of  the  outward  part,  as  illustrating  the  permanence  of  Our 

Lord's  two  natures Pages  201 — 202 

Fourth,  or  Anti-Nestorian  School,  maintained  the  identity  and  sacredness 
of  the  inward  part,  or  res  sacramenti,  as  proving  that  the  manhood  had 

truly  been  taken  into  God Page  203 

Fifth,  or  Western  School,  more  scientific  and  comprehensive,  united  the 
views  of  the  other  four.  Sacramentum,  and  res  sacramenti — the  first, 
or  outward  sign,  the  nourishment  of  the  hody — the  second,  or  Body  of 

Christ,  the  nourishment  of  the  soul Pages  204 — 208 

Aquinas,  and  the  Schoolmen,  not  coincident  in  langimge  with  any  of  these 
schools — but  express  their  result  in  terms  of  the  Aristotelian  philo- 
sophy. Authority  of  Scholastic  definitions  dependent  on  that  of  Council 

of  Trent Pages  209—210 

All  five  Ancient  Schools  shown  to  hold  Peal  Presence ; 

Ist,  by  theii  asserting  tcorship  to  be  due  to  Christ's  Body,  as  present 
in  the  consecrated  elements.  This  a  test  of  belief  in  Real  Pre- 
sence according  to  Luther  and  Calvin.  The  actual  worship  paid 
to  Christ,  present  as  the   res  sacramenti,  not  neutralized  by  the 

rubric  in  the  English  Ordinal Pagt»  211 — 218 

2ndly,  by  their  affirming  that  whosoever  receives  the  sacramentum,  re- 
ceives also  the  res  sacramenti,  or  Body  of  Christ  Pages  218 — 220 


CHAPTER  X. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  CHRIST'S  REAL   PRESENCE  NO  INTERFERENCE  WITH 
THE  OFFICE  OF  THE   HOLY  GHOST. 

Johns<in'8  notion,  that  the  Holy  Eucharist  an  "  impanation  "  of  the  Holy 
Ghost Pages  221—222 


/ 


CONTENTS.  xiii 

I.  Scriptural  proof  that  Our  Lord's  Presence  in  tlie  Holy  Eucharist  does 
not  interfere  with  the  office  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  * 

Such  an  opinion  would  imply  that  the  action  of  the  Second  and  Third 
Persons  was  successive,  and  not  coincident — Sabellian  heresy.  The 
Second  and  Third  Persons  in  the  Godhead  discriminated  by  their 
relations  to  one  another — Their  temporal  mission  the  result  of  their 
eternal  relations — The  Holy  Ghost  proceeds  from  the  Father  and  the 
Son — The  Son  Incarnate,  because  man's  Creator — He  gives  His  Flesh 
in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  because  Incarnate     ....  Pages  222 — 231 

The  Holy  Ghost  not  a  Son,  but  a  Sanctifying  Poiver,  or  Princi'ple  of  Love, 
who  co-operates  in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  as  He  did  in  the  Incarnation. 
The  doctrine  of  the  Bl«ssed  Trinity,  the  revealing  of  those  Eternal 
relations,  which  were  not  only  before,  but  independent  of  time 

Pages  231—238 

II.  Testimony  of  Church,  that  Our  Lord's  Presence  in  the  Holy  Eucharist 
no  interference  with  the  office  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

The  gift  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  asserted  to  be  that  of  the  same  Body, 
which  was  born  of  the  Virgin,  supernaturally  present.  Yet  the  Holy 
Ghost  spoken  of  as  an  agent  in  the  transaction — Invoked  to  descend 
upon  the  elements,  in  all  ancient  Liturgies  except  Roman.  Invocation 
not  superseded  by  belief  that  consecration  effected  by  words  of  Insti- 
tution. The  action  of  Divine  Persons  independent  of  time.  Analogy 
of  their  co-operation  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  and  in  the  Incarnation 

Pages  238—245 


CHAPTER  XL 

THE  HOLY  EUCHAKIST  BEGABDED  AS  A  SACBIFICE. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Eucharistic  Sacrifice  implies  and  illustrates  that  of 
the  Peal  Presence Pages  246—247 

The  Holy  Eucharist  the  chief  act  of  that  public  worship  whereby  we  par- 
ticipate in  the  Mediation  of  Christ — and  the  means  whereby  the  "one 
perpetual  sacrifice  for  sins  "  is  applied.  No  new  propitiation,  but  the 
perpetual,  or  "juge  sacrificium"  whereby  the  one  sacrifice  on  the 
cross  cOntinueth  here  still  on  earth Pages  247 — 251 

Scriptural  statement  of  Our  Lord's  Priesthood  "  after  the  order  of 
Melchisedec."  The  Holy  Eucharist  analogous  to  the  Sin-Offering. 
Purpose  of  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  Jewish  Sacrifices  how  divided — 
the  greater  and  lesser  Sin-Offering.  The  Holy  Eucharist  said  to  be 
analogous  to  that  greater  Sin-Offering,  of  which  the  Jewish  Priesthood 
(who  served  the  Tabernacle)  might  not  eat  ....  Pages  251 — 258 

The  Sacrifice  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  efficient — Why  rejected  by  Luther, 
while  he  admitted  the  Real  Presence.  Its  efficacy  dependent  on  that 
of  Our  Lord's  Intercession Pages  258 — 261 

Alternatives  of  which  the  case  admits.  Either  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  not 
a  sacrifice  at  all — or,  if  a  sacrifice,  it  is  merely  the  sacrifice  of  the 
sacramentum,  or  outward  part — or  it  includes  the  sacrifice  of  the  res 


xiv  CONTENTS. 

mcramenti  also.     (The  devotion  of  the  communicants  not  specifically, 

oT  in  itself,  a  sacramenfal  ottering) I'wjes  261 — 262 

The  Holy  Eucharist  shown  to  be  a  sacrifice — 

by  the  testimony  of  all  ancient  authors  ; — 

by  the  existence  and  construction  of  the  ancient  liturgies 

rmjes  262—265 

The  sacrament iiin  presented  as  a  memorial  or  commemorative  ofi'ering ; 

but  to  account  this  the  tchole  sacrifice,  would  be  to  substitute  shadow 

for  substance.    Testimony  of  ^v^iters  before  St.  Cyprian  to  the  oblation 

of  the  res  sacramenti — This  doctrine  not  a  new  one  in  the  third  century 

Pages  265—269 
Testimony  of  the  undivided  ancient  Church,  that — 

1st,  The  thing  ofiered  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  the  Body  of  Christ  : 
2ndly,  The  Holy  Eucharist  is  not  anything  superadded  to  the  sacri- 
fice on  the  cross,  but  its  perpetual  application  : 
3rdly,  The  victim  offered  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  identical  with  the 

real  Priest  : 
4thly,  The  sacrifice  is  awful,  august,  and  mysterious  : 
5thly,  The  sacrifice  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  efficacious: 
6thly,  The  sacrifice  of  Christ  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  an  antitype  to 

the  Jewish  sacrifices : 
7thly,  The  Holy  Eucharist  differs  from  the  Legal  Sacrifices,  because 

they  were  shadows,  while  it  is  a  reality : 
8thly,  To  offer  the  sacrifice  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  the  especial 
function,  with  which  the  Apostles  and  their  successors  have  been 

entrusted  by  Christ Pages  269—277 

The  Cliristian  Church  included  in  the  Eucharistic  Sacrifice,  because 
it  is  the  Myxticid  Body  of  Christ — and  is  sanctified  by  the  presence 
of  His  Body  7ja<«rai Pages  277 — 279 


CHAPTER  XII. 
THE  BENEFITS  WHICH  RESULT  FKOM  THE  HOLY  EUCHARIST. 

Baptism  distinguished  from  the  Holy  Eucharist,  because  the  benefit  of 
the  last  is  not  associated  with  the  ordinance  at  large,  but  with  its  in- 
ward part,  or  rp.s  sacramenti Pages  279 — 280 

Sacrificial  Benefit  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  dependent  on  the  Intercession  of 
Christ.     Pealili/  thus  given  to  the  Church's  worship    Pages  280 — 282 

Sacrame7ital  Benefit  of  the  Holy  Eucharist,  because  it  is  the  applicafion 
of  the  Incarnation.  In  Baptism  the  Second  Adam  joins  His  members 
to  Himself  by  spiritual  power ;  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  He  bestows  the 
actual  Presence  of  His  Body  and  Blood.  The  efiect  of  Our  Lord's 
Flesh  not  natural,  but  as  the  agent  of  His  Deity — in  quickening  man's 
nature — and  in  bringing  him  into  relation  with  the  nature  of  God 

Pages  282—287 

I.  Christ's  Body  and  Blood  act  according  to  a  spiritual,  not  a  physical 
order — llieir  heiiefit  only  attainable  through  faith.  The  process,  ac- 
cording to  which  Christ's  Body  sustains  the  suul,  the  converse  of  that, 


CONTENTS.  XV 

according  to  whicli  food  sustains  the  body — He  does  not  pass  into  the 
receiver,  but  the  receiver  into  Him — the  body  built  up  is  the  Mystical 
Body  of  Christ.  The  Flesh  of  the  Second  Adam,  an  antidote  to  the 
flesh  of  the  first Pages  287—293 

Spiritual  Life  the  condition  of  profiting  by  the  food  of  Christ's  Body. 
Baptism  the  first  qualification,  because  then  life  bestowed — life  main- 
tained by  prayer — recovered  by  repentance,  confession,  and  absolution 

Pages  293—300 

II.  Christ's  Body  unites  men  by  the  bond  of  love,  not  that  of  personality. 
The  Incarnation  the  true  guard  against  Pantheism — as  recognizing  the 
distinctioii  between  the  Creator  and  the  creatures,  while  it  produces 
a  relation  between  the  finite  and  the  Infinite    .     .     .  Pages  300 — 303 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

PRACTICAL  CONCLUSIONS.  ' 

The  Church  of  England,  as  professing  to  adhere  to  the  Primitive  model, 
bound  to  follow  the  ancient  rule  respecting  the  Holy  Eucharist. 

A  daily  Eucharist  the  rule  under  the  Apostles  ....  Pages  304 — 306 

This  rule  interrupted  at  first  by  persecution,  but  prevalent  even  in  the 
second,  and  still  more  completely  in  the  third  and  fourth  centuries — 
though  more  solemn  assemblies  were  held  on  the  Sabbath  and  on 
Sunday.  Daily  Sacrifice  and  daily  Reception  practised  and  recom- 
mended by  the  greatest  Fathers — St.  Cyprian,  St.  Ambrose,  St.  Jerome, 
St.  Chrysostom,  St.  Augustin,  St.  Gregory,  &c.      .     .  Pages  306 — 311 

The  same  practice  contemplated  in  king  Edward  Vlth's  First  Prayer- 
Book,  but  discountenanced  by  his  Second  Book  (composed  under  Zuin- 
glian  influence  ;) — which  divested  the  Communion  ofiice  of  its  sacrificial 
character — and  for  the  first  time  excluded  communicants  from  the 
sacrifice,  when  unprepared  to  partake  of  the  sacrament.  This  last  order 
omitted,  when  the  Prayer-Book  was  first  revised  and  approved  by  the 
representatives  of  the  Church,  A.D.  1662.  Its  mischievous  effect 
(which,  however,  still  continues),  regretted  by  Overall  and  Cosin. 
Such  intermission  of  the  daily  Eucharist  {juge  sacrificium)  a  disparage- 
ment of  the  Intercession  of  Christ Pages  311 — 318 

Objection,  that  to  partake  of  the  sacrifice  without  partaking  at  the  same 
time  in  the  sacrament  is,  1st,  Opposed  to  the  analogy  of  the  Jewish 
Law ;  2ndly,  forbidden  by  the  Primitive  Church  ;  3rdly,  unprofitable. 
But  it  may  be  answered  ;  that — 
I.  In  the  ordinary  oS'erings  of  the  Jewish  Law,  no  one  was  required  to 
eat  of  the  victim  except  the  Officiating  Priest.  The  Passover  was 
hardly  a  proper  sacrifice.  But  even  the  Passover  was  not  required  to 
be  eaten  by  women,  children,  and  other  disqualified  persons,  who  were 
members  of  the  sodality,  for  which  it  was  oiiered  .     .  Pages  318 — 322 

II.  The  rule  of  the  Primitive  Church,  shortly  before  the  division  of  East 
and  West,  was  a  daily  Eucharist  celebrated  by  the  clergy — the  laity 
ordered  to  attend  every  Sunday,  and  to  receive  on  great  occasions. 


xvi  CONTENTS. 

The  same  rule  may  be  traced  fixim  the  eighth  to  the  commencement  of  the 

sixth  century. 
Bingliam's  opinion  that  this  custom  was  introduced  during  the  fifth  cen- 
tury, is — 

not  required    by  the   words   of    St.  Chrysostom,    on   which    he 

grounds  it : — 
not  accordant  with  St.  Chrysostom's  own  practice : — 
and  inconsistent  with  the /ac<  that  no  notice  of  the  change  occurs 

Pages  322— 329 
The  Church's  rule  in  St.  Chrysostom's  time  seems  to  have  been — 

that  all  laymen  in  communion  with  the  Church  were  permitfed  to 
attend  the  daily  sacrifice,  without  partaking  daily  of  the 
sacrament — 
that  daily  reception  was  recommended,  and  that  none  could  be  in 
communion  with  the  Church,  who  did  not  communicate  oc- 
rasionallj/. 
Four  considerations,  which  lead  to  this  result : 

1st,  The  Eucharistic  Office  was  the  only  Public  Ritual  during  the 

first  three  centuries. 
2ndly,  All  persons  in  full  communion,  who  'attended  it,  were  ex- 
pected to  remain  till  the  end  of  the  office. 
3rdly,    Some    who   attended   were   not   expected   to   communicate. 

(Coiisistenteif,  &c.) 
4thly,  No  canon  of  general  obligation  ordered  all  to  receive — The 
canons  quoted  by  Bingham  either  inapplicable  or  local 

Pages  329—339 
III.  Those  who  exclude  from  communicating  with  the  Eucharistic  sacrifice 

by  prayer,  ought  to  prove  the  practice  uidawful. 
The  custom  advantageous,  as  respects  individuals,  because — 
it  quickens  devotion  : — 
it  gives  efficacy  to  their  petitions. 
Its  advantage  to  the  Collective  Church — 

in  maintaining  a  helief  in  the  efficacy  of  public  worship ; — 

and  a  practical  sense  of  the  Mediation  of  Christ    Pages  339 — 342 


THE  DOCTRINE 


THE  HOLY  EUCHARIST. 


INTRODUCTION. 

The  present  work  is  the  sequel  of  a  Treatise  on  the  Doctrine  of 
the  Incarnation,  which  was  published  four  years  ago.  It  was 
there  asserted  that  ^'^  Sacraments  are  the  extension  of  the  Incar- 
nation" and  a  chapter  was  devoted  to  their  consideration.  But 
their  relation  to  that  great  mystery  was  felt  from  the  first  to 
require  more  detailed  consideration.  The  Doctrine  of  the 
Incarnation  therefore  was  followed  after  a  year  by  a  work  on 
the  Doctrine  of  Holy  Baptism,  and  the  present  treatise  com- 
pletes my  design. 

In  treating  on  Baptism,  little  reference  was  made  to  any 
authorities  exc^t  Holy  Scripture,  and  the  formularies  and 
divines  of  our  own  Church.  For  not  only  are  our  formularies 
singularly  full  upon  this  subject,  but  the  language  of  our  great 
divines  is  singularly  explicit.  So  that  in  writing  to  English 
Churchmen  it  seemed  hardly  necessary  to  go  deeper,  or  to  enter 
into  any  great  inquiry  respecting  the  teaching  of  the  Primitive 
Church.  In  the  present  instance  a  different  course  has  been 
adopted.    The  greater  intricacy  of  the  subject,  and  the  confusion 


2  INTRODUCTION. 

in  which  it  has  heen  involved  by  an  ambiguous  phraseology,  has 
made  it  necessary  to  mount  up  to  the  fountain,  and  to  inquire 
what  was  that  interpretation  of  Our  Lord's  words  which  was 
received  among  His  first  followers.  The  method,  therefore, 
which  has  heen  adopted  in  this  work,  is  that  which  was  pre- 
scribed for  the  guidance  of  preachers  by  the  Convocation  which 
imposed  subscription  to  the  Articles.  They  were  not  to  pro- 
pound anything  except  that  which  is  consistent  with  the  teaching 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  and  that  which  the  Catholic 
Fathers  and  ancient  Bishops  have  deduced  from  its  teaching. 

Such  is  the  principle  which  is  adopted  in  the  present  volume. 
The  authority  of  Holy  Scripture  is  first  referred  to,  and  its 
infallible  decision  set  forth.  "When  its  meaning  is  disputed, 
reference  is  made  to  the  Primitive  Fathers,  as  providing  the 
best  means  of  settling  the  dispute.  So  that  those  who  maintain 
that  Scripture  is  the  only  authority,  can  find  no  fault  with  the 
line  here  adopted.  Scripture  is  referred  to  as  the  paramount 
authority,  but  when  its  meaning  is  disputed,  the  judgment  of 
early  ages  has  been  taken,  as  being  a  safer  exponent  of  its  real 
purpose  than  mere  logical  arguments. 

And  surely  there  is  no  point  on  which  the  judgment  of 
primitive  Christians  is  of  more  value  than  this.  For  it  was  a 
point  on  which  their  judgment  was  entirely  unanimous.  On 
many  subjects  the  Church  was  early  rent  into  parties ;  so  that 
at  times  it  was  difficult  to  say  what  doctrine  was  predominant. 
But  respecting  the  Holy  Eucharist  there  existed  no  symptom  of 
disagreement  for  eight  centuries  and  a  half.  No  doubt  the 
received  doctrine  had  been  earlier  disputed,  but  it  was  not  by 
dissentients  within  the  Church,  but  by  external  opponents.  The 
Gnostics,^  who  denied  that  the  Holy  Eucharist  was  the  Flesh  of 
Our  Lord,  cut  themselves  off  in  the  second  century  from  the 
Church;  and  the  Messalian"  heretics,  who  denied  that  this 
sacred  food  was  either  beneficial  or  injurious,  were  cut  off  from 
it  by  its  public  sentence  in  the  fourth.     These  external  assaults 

'  S.  Ignatius  ad  Smym.  6.    The  passage  is  quoted  by  Theodoret,  Dial.  iii. 
-  Theodor.  Hist.  iv.  11. 


INTRODUCTION.  3 

throw  greatei-  light  upon  the  unanimity  which  prevailed 
within.  So  that  Paschasius  is  the  first  author  who  has  ever 
been  alleged  to  have  introduced  a;ny  doctrine  which  did  not 
meet  with  universal  approval ;  and  the  statements  of  earlier 
writers  were  admitted  at  the  time  to  express  the  collective 
judgment  of  the  whole  community.  Now  those  who  look  to  the 
first  Christians  merely  as  witnesses,  must  allow  that  they  were 
so  far  competent  judges  of  the  system  which  was  delivered  to 
them,  that  they  could  not  all  have  been  mistaken  respecting  its 
chai'acteristic  features.  And  those  who  take  a  higher  view  of 
the  Church's  judgment,  and  admit  it  to  possess  "authority  in 
controversies  of  faith,"  cannot  dispute  its  decision  upon  a  point 
on  which  there  was  no  dissension.  For  the  eight  centuries  and 
a  half  which  precede  Paschasius,  are  those  also  which  precede 
Photius ;  they  are  the  period  when  the  East  and  West  were 
yet  undivided,  and  when  the  Church  could  appeal  with  the 
fullest  confidence  to  the  promise  of  a  supernatural  guidance. 

In  the  present  work,  then,  the  authorities  cited  are  all 
previous  to  the  time  of  Photius,  before  which  the  East  and  the 
West  were  not  permanently  divided ;  as  well  as  to  the  time  of 
Paschasius,  when  the  Holy  Eucharist  first  became  a  matter  of 
dispute.  The  opinions  of  later  writers  are  referred  to  by  way 
of  illustration,  and  not  of  authority.  And  in  fact,  it  has  hardly 
been  found  necessarj'  to  go  lower  than  those  eminent  divines, 
who  were  contemporary  with  the  four  great  Councils  of  the 
ancient  Church.  The  value  of  these  writers  is,  not  that  they 
speak  a  different  language  from  the  ante-Nicene  Fathers,  but 
that  the  controversies  of  their  times,  and  their  own  higher 
intellectual  culture,  gave  a  scientific  form  to  those  truths  which 
had  been  believed  from  the  beginning.  And  their  authority 
ought  on  every  ground  to  be  admitted  by  English  Churchmen ; 
for  the  reference  of  our  law  on  heresy  to  the  four  first  Councils 
shows  that  the  English  Church  supposes  herself  to  accord  in 
principle  entirely  with  the  Nicene.  The  authors  therefore 
whose  judgment  is  mainly  appealed  to  in  this  work,  besides  the 
ante-Nicene   Fathers,  are   St.  Athanasius,  the   Gregories,  the 

B  2 


4  INTRODUCTION. 

Cyrils,  St.  Basil,  St.  Chrysostom,  St.  Jerome,  St.  Gaudentius, 
St.  Ambrose,  St.  Leo,  and  St.  Augustin.  These,  and  those  who 
lived  at  about  the  same  period,  express  a  distinct  and  accordant 
view  respecting  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Eucharist,  and  supply 
a  sufficient  commentary  upon  the  authoritative  statements  of 
Holy  Writ. 

It  may  be  said,  perhaps,  that  on  so  sacred  a  subject  distinct 
views  are  scarcely  desirable ;  and  that  it  is  better  not  to 
dogmatize  upon  topics  on  which  revelation  is  silent,  and  which 
the  mind  is  incompetent  to  discuss.  No  one  is  more  sensible 
than  the  writer,  that  to  Theology,  more  than  to  any  other 
subject  of  human  knowledge,  applies  the  remark  of  Quintilian, 
"  inter  virtutes  habehitur  aliqua  nescire."  But  in  this,  as  in  every 
other  part  of  divine  truth,  our  ignorance  must  be  based  upon 
some  fixed  principle,  and  be  bounded  by  some  definite  and 
intelligible  limits.  What  can  be  more  mysterious  than  the 
co-existence  of  the  Three  Persons  in  the  glorious  Godhead,  or 
than  the  union  of  Godhead  and  manhood  in  the  Person  of 
Christ  ?  Yet  to  make  the  depth  of  these  truths  a  reason  for 
refusing  to  accept  them,  would  not  be  humility,  but  unbelief. 
There  must  be  some  limit,  then,  to  the  feeling  which  leads 
devout  men  to  shrink  from  mysteries — some  law  which  dis- 
criminates between  presumptuous  inquiry  and  reverential 
contemplation.  And  what  can  that  limit  be,  save  the  very 
principle  which  has  been  already  laid  down — a  reference  to  the 
declarations  of  Scripture,  and  to  the  teaching  of  the  Church  ? 

The  present  inquiry,  therefore,  will  not  enter  upon  any^ topic 
which  there  is  not  this  sanction  for  considering.  Whether 
Christ  is  truly  present  or  not  in  the  Holy  Eucharist ;  whether 
we  are  to  behave  as  though  He  were  really  with  us,  and  are 
truly  responsible  for  a  divine  gift ;  and  again,  whether  in  that 
holy  ordinance  there  is  a  real  sacrifice — these  are  in  great 
measure  practical  questions,  on  which  it  is  possible  to  produce 
distinct  evidence  from  Scripture  and  the  Primitive  Church. 
But  the  manner  in  which  Christ's  presence  is  bestowed,  whether 
it  be  by  trausubstautiatiou,  or  according  to  any  other  law,  is 


CONSECRATION  THE  CHARACTERISTIC,  ETC.  5 

a  point  which  did  not  come  under  consideration  during  the 
first  eight  centuries.     On  this  subject  therefore  it  will  not  be 

I  necessary  to  enter.  But  that  Christ's  presence  in  the  Holy 
Eucharist  is  a  real  presence ;  that  the  blessings  of  the  new  life 
are  truly  bestowed  in  it  through  communion  with  the  New 
Adam ;  that  consecration  is  a  real  act,  whereby  the  inward  part 
or  thing  signified  is  joined  to  the  outward  and  visible  sign ;  and 
that  the  Eucharistic  oblation  is  a  real  sacrifice — these  points 
it  will  be  attempted  to  prove  by  the  testimony  of  Scripture  and 
of  the  ancient  Fathers.  "Domine  Deus  une,  Deus  Trinitas, 
quaecunque  dixi  in  his  libris  de  Tuo,  ignoscant  et  Tui :  si  qua 
de  meo,  et  Tu  ignosce  et  Tui."  "  Coram  Te  est  scientia  et  igno- 
rantia  mea ;  ubi  mihi  aperuisti,  suscipe  intrantem ;  ubi  clau- 
sistij  aperi  pulsanti.  Meminerim  Tui,  intelligam  Te,  diligam 
Te." 


CHAPTEE   I. 


CONSECKATION    THE    ESSENTIAL    CHAEACTEKISTIC    OF   THE    HOLY 
EUCHARIST. 

An  inquiry  into  the  nature  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  must  be 
founded  upon  Scripture,  and  upon  that  passage  of  Scripture 
by  which  this  solemn  rite  was  authorized  as  well  as  explained. 
The  authority  of  Him  by  whom  they  were  spoken,  the  interest 
of  the  occasion  on  which  they  were  employed,  the  sententious 
weight  of  the  expressions  themselves — all  give  to  the  words  of 
institution  an  importance  which  few  other  passages  even  of  Holy 
Scripture  can  claim. 

"  Jesus  took  bread  and  blessed  it,  and  brake  it,  and  gave  it  to 
the  disciples,  and  said.  Take,  eat,  this  is  My  Body.  And  He 
took  the  cup,  and  gave  thanks,  and  gave  it  to  them,  saying. 
Drink  ye  all  of  it ;  for  this  is  My  Blood  of  the  New  Testament, 
which  is  ghed  for  many,  for  the  remission  of  sins." 


6  CONSECRATION  THE  CHAEACTERISTIC 

The  emphatic  words  of  this  declaration  consist  in  each  case 
of  three  parts.  "This  is  My  Body."  "This  is  My  Blood." 
We  have  here,  to  sjieak  logically,  a  subject,  a  jyredicate,  and  a 
copula  ;  there  is  something  spoken  of — "  This,"  which  was  taken 
by  Our  Lord :  there  is  the  affirmation  itself — It  is  My  Body : 
there  is  "i/y  Body"  ^^ My  Blood"  which  in  each  case  is  the 
predicate,  or  thing  affirmed  respecting  the  subject.  And  this 
gives  us  three  topics,  w  hich  must  be  considered  in  order ;  first, 
the  subject  which  is  here  spoken  of;  secondly,  the  predicate,  or 
that  which  is  affirmed  respecting  it — "  ^ly  Body,"  "  ^ly  Blood  ;" 
and  thirdly,  the  nature  of  the  relation  which  is  affirmed  to  exist 
between  them — "  This  is  My  Body." 

To  begin  with  the  first — the  subject.  Our  Lord's  words 
respecting  it  involve  this  main  truth — that  Consecration  is 
the  essential  characteristic  of  the  Holy  Euchai'ist.  For  Our 
Lord  does  not  speak  of  bread  at  large,  or  wine  in  genei'al,  but 
of  This,  i.e.  of  that  which  was  consecrated,  or  set  apart.  No 
doubt  His  words  had  a  fui'ther  application ;  their  ultimate 
reference  was  to  "  the  inward  part  or  thing  signified,"  which 
was  the  real  object  under  consideration ;  but  they  had  also  an 
indirect  relation  to  "  the  outward  and  visible  sign."  Now 
viewing  the  thing  in  reference  to  this  last,  it  was  the  bread 
which  He  had  blessed,  over  which  He  had  given  thanks,  and 
which  He  had  broken ;  and  the  cup  over  which  He  had  given 
thanks ;  which  were  the  subject-matter  of  His  declaration.  The 
consecration,  therefore,  by  which  these  elements  were  separated 
from  all  co-ordinate  specimens  of  the  same  material,  is  that 
circumstance  which  gives  them  the  peculiar  character  which 
His  words  express.  And  so  we  may  learn  also  from  the  only 
otlier  passage  of  Holy  Scripture  in  which  this  subject  is 
formally  treated.  When  St.  Paul  explains  the  nature  of  the 
Holy  Eucharist  to  the  Corinthians,  he  refers  to  the  consecration 
of  the  elements  as  its  distinguishing  characteristic.  "  The  cuj) 
of  blessing  ivhich  we  bless,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  Blood 
of  Chrit<t?  The  bread  which  loe  break,  is  it  not  the  communion 
of  the  Body  of  Christ  V "     We  may  infer,  therefore,  that  the 


OF  THE  HOLY  EUCHARIST.  7 

elements  as  consecrated  are  the  subject  spoken  of:  Our  Lord's 
awful  words  do  not  refer  to  bread  and  wine  at  large,  but  to 
that  wbicb  He  held  in  His  hands,  and  which  He  had  blessed. 

Such  accordingly  was  the  interpretation  of  Our  Lord's  words, 
which  was  received  from  the  first  in  the  Christian  Church. 
This  is  apparent,  not  only  from  the  direct  statements  of  the 
Fathers,  but  from  those  usages  which  were  coeval  with  the 
very  existence  of  Christianity.  It  is  "  the  food  which  is  sancti- 
fied by  the  word  of  prayer,"  which  is  "  no  longer  common  bread, 
and  common  drink,"  but  "  the  Flesh  and  Blood  of  the  Incarnate 
Jesus." ^  It  is  when  "the  bread  from  the  earth  receives  the 
invocation  of  God,"  that  it  is  "  no  longer  common  bread,  but 
Eucharist,  consisting  of  two  things,  an  earthly  and  a  heavenly."^ 
This  is  the  same  doctrine  which  is  more  fully  expressed  by 
St.  Ambrose  and  St.  Augustin. 

"Our  bread  and  our  cup  is  not  any  one,"  i.e.  any  specimen  of 
the  food  partaken,  "  but  it  is  a  mystical  one,  which  is  produced 
by  a  fixed  consecration,  and  does  not  come  by  growth.  That 
which  is  not  produced  in  this  way,  though  it  may  be  bread  and 
a  cup,  is  a  means  of  bodily  refreshment,  not  a  sacrament  of 
religion."  ^  "  Before  the  blessing  of  the  sacred  words  another 
species  is  named ;  after  consecration  the  Body  is  signified. 
Before  consecration  it  is  called  a  difi'erent  thing;  after  conse- 
cration it  is  called  Blood."* 

These  passages  go  to  the  exact  point  which  it  is  necessary  to 
prove ;  that  the  consecration  of  the  elements  was  understood  to 
be  the  characteristic  circumstance  upon  which  the  validity  of 
the  sacrament  was  dependent.  They  show  the  understanding, 
therefore,  which  the  first  Christians  put  upon  Our  Lord's  words, 
and  that  the  consecrated  gifts  were  supposed  to  be  the  subject- 
matter  of  His  declaration.  And  the  same  thing  appears  both 
from  the  importance  which  from  the  first  was  attached  to  the  act 

1  Justin  M.  Apol.  i.  66.  -  S.  Iren.  iv.  18.  5. 

^  S.  Augustin,  Contra  Faustum,  xx.  13. 

*  S.  Amb.  de  Myst.  ix.  54.  And  in  his  Treatise  "De  Fide,"  b.  iv. 
c.  10.  124.  "Sacramenta  .  .  .  per  sacrse  orationis  mysteriuin  in  camem 
transfigurantur  et  sanguiuem." 


8  CONSECRATION  THE  CHARACTERISTIC 

of  consecration,  and  from  tlie  belief  that  It  could  not  be  effected, 
save  by  those  to  whom  a  specific  commission  had  been  trans- 
mitted. The  first  of  these  points  is  attested  by  the  Liturgies  of 
tlie  early  Church,  as  will  be  seen  when  we  proceed  to  consider 
them ;  the  second  is  witnessed  by  Church  history  at  large.  It 
may  be  said,  perhaps,  that  this  was  a  mere  rule  of  decency ;  and 
that  it  contributed  to  the  propriety  of  worship  that  public  offices 
should  be  discharged  by  public  ministers.  But  such  a  suppo- 
sition is  negatived  by  the  18th  Canon  ^  of  the  Council  of  Nice, 
which  assumes  it  as  an  acknowledged  fact  that  Deacons  had  no 
authority  to  consecrate  the  Holy  Eucharist,  and  that  this 
authority  was  confined  to  those  who  had  been  admitted  to  the 
Priesthood.  Now,  unless  there  were  some  real  efficacy  in  conse- 
cration, whereby  the  consecrated  elements  became  other  than  they 
were  before,  why  could  it  not  be  performed  by  the  lower  order 
of  ministers  ? 

That  the  Priesthood,  then,  was  a  specific  commission,  whereby 
the  power  of  consecrating  the  sacred  elements  was  conferred,  and 
that  on  the  validity  of  this  commission  depended  the  reality  of 
consecration,  was  the  universal  belief  of  the  Fathers.  "  To  make 
the  Divine  Bread  and  to  minister  it,  with  the  view  to  its  being 
the  food  of  eternal  life,"  ^  was  the  power  which  is  said  to  have 
been  given  by  Our  Lord  to  His  Apostles,  and  which  they  trans- 
mitted to  their  successors. 

"  Do  you  not  know,"  asks  St.  Chrysostom,  "  what  the  priest  is  ? 
He  is  the  messenger  of  the  Lord.  His  statements  are  not  hia 
own.  If  you  despise  him,  it  is  not  he  whom  you  despise,  but 
God,  who  has  ordained  him.     Does  any  one  ask  how  it  is  known 

'  Deacons,  it  would  appear,  had  in  some  cases  taken  upon  them  to 
deliver  the  consecrated  elements  to  priests.  The  Council  therefore  ob- 
serves, that  it  is  irregular  that  those  who  have  not  the  power  to  conse- 
crate should  deliver  the  elements  to  those  who  have,  "toiis  i^ovalav  /i^ 
ixovTas  ■npoa<p(p(iv  rois  ■npoa(pipovai  Zihovai  ro  auipia  tov  Xptarov." — Corn. 
18.  It  must  be  remembered  that  to  njfer  and  tn  consecntte  were  at  that 
time  equivalent  tenna. —  Waterland's  Srcimd  Letter  to  Kehall,  Works,  x. 
113.  Vide  also  Con.  Carth.  iv.  Can.  4:  "Diaconus  ....  non  ad  sacer- 
dotium,  sed  ad  miuisterium  consecratur." 

*  "Ad  vitae  aternfe  cibum,  ccelestem  panem  perficere  ac  ministrare." — 
(S.  Hilar,  in  Matth.  c.  xiv.  sec.  10,  p.  681. 


OF  THE  HOLY  EUCHARIST.  9 

that  God  has  ordained  him  ?  If  you  deny  this,  your  own  hope 
is  made  vain.  For  if  God  effects  nothing  through  him,  you  have 
neither  the  laver  of  Baptism,  nor  do  you  partake  of  the  mysteries. 
....  So  that  you  are  no  Christian."  ^ 

From  the  first  origin  therefore  of  the  Christian  Church  it  was 
laid  down,  that  no  valid  Eucharist  could  be  had,  where  there 
was  no  priest  to  consecrate.  In  the  earliest  of  all  uninspired 
Christian  documents,  the  Epistle  of  St.  Clement,  the  office  of  the 
Priest  is  described  as  that  of  presenting  the  Eucharistic  Offering.  ^ 
In  the  next  writer,  St.  Ignatius,  the  validity  of  the  Eucharist  is 
expressly  limited  to  those  who  act  by  Episcopal  commission.^ 
Then  comes  the  Apology  of  Justin,*  stating  that  the  "  principal 
minister  offered  the  Eucharist."  This  is  fully  confirmed  by 
Tertullian,  though  some  equivocal  expressions  ^  of  his  have  been 
cited  as  having  a  different  sense.  The  Holy  Eucharist,  he  says, 
was  not  received  except  from  the  hands  of  the  Church's  public 

'  In  2  Tim.  i. ;  Horn.  ii.  2. 

^  "  01  Ttoiowm  ras  ■iipoa(j)opas."     C.  40,  and  again  C.  44. 

^  Ad  Smyrnseos.  8. 

*  "  evxapK^TtjaavTos  rod  irpoeara/TO^,"  &c. — Apol.  i.  65.  The  passage 
from  the  Dial,  cum  Tryplione,  sec.  116,  is  not  quoted,  because  not  de- 
cisive when  considered  in  itself. 

^  Neander  grounds  his  assertion  that  the  sacraments  may  be  ministered 
by  those  who  are  not  in  Holy  Orders  on  the  authority  of  Tertullian. — 
Eccles.  Hint.  vol.  i.  p.  302.  (Hamburg,  1825.)  He  quotes  two  passages. 
The  first  from  TertuU.  de  Baptismo,  sec.  17,  refers  only  to  Baptism,  and 
therefore  can  make  only  for  the  validity  of  lay-Baptism.  The  second 
passage,  De  exhort.  Cast.  sec.  7,  is  explained  in  Waterland's  second  letter 
to  Kelsall,  Works,  x.  110  (1823),  and  in  a  still  more  satisfactory  manner 
in  Bollinger's  Church  History,  vol.  i.  p.  223  (London,  1840).  Dr.  Dol- 
linger  shows  that  Tertullian  recognizes  the  sacred  character  conferred  in 
Ordination,  "honor  per  Ordinis  consessum  sanctificatus  a  Deo:"  and  he 
argues  with  great  probability  that  the  usage  to  which  Tertullian  is  here 
referring  was  consequent  upon  the  custom  which  then  prevailed,  of  pre- 
serving the  consecrated  Elements  and  receiving  them  at  home.  In  this 
case  Tertullian  maintains  that  the  father  of  the  family,  who  distributed 
them,  was  administering  a  priestly  office,  and  ought  therefore  to  live 
vnth  priestly  sacredness.  It  would  seem  probable,  besides,  that  this 
work  was  composed  by  Tertullian  after  he  had  become  a  Montanist,  and 
its  uncertain  expressions  ought  not  to  weigh  against  the  direct  testimony 
of  his  orthodox  works. — Vide  also  De  Marcd  de  Discrimine  Clericorum  et 
Laicorurn,  vol.  iv.  p.  311. 


10  CONSECRATION  THE  CHARACTERISTIC 

ministers.^  And  he  speaks  of  it  as  characteristic  of  heretics,  that 
they  assigned  priestly  offices  to  laymen.^ 

As  we  advance  into  a  period  when  Christian  writers  become 
more  numerous,  the  proofs  that  the  consecration  of  the  Holy 
Eucharist  was  the  specific  office  of  the  priesthood,  and  was 
confined  to  them  alone,  are  so  numerous,  that  selection  becomes 
the  only  difficulty.  St.  Cyprian  speaks  of  the  offering  of  the 
Eucharistic  sacrifice  as  the  appointed  act  by  which  the  ministers 
of  Christ  were  to  imitate  ^  their  Lord.  He  describes  the  clergy 
as  men  who  should  be  "  given  to  the  service  of  the  Altar  and  to 
sacrifices,"  *  and  who  were  chosen  to  the  post  of  "  offering  "  ^  to 
God.  In  the  Apostolical  Constitutions,  the  thing  demanded  for 
one  who  was  called  to  the  highest  office  in  the  ministry  was  that 
he  "  might  have  authority  to  offer  the  pure  and  bloodless  victim, 
which  Thou  hast  appointed  through  Christ  as  the  mystery  of  the 
new  covenant ; "  ^  and  the  ground  on  which  the  Priesthood  is 
entitled  to  the  reverence  of  the  people  is  said  to  be,  "  because 
they  honour  you  with  the  saving  Body,  and  the  precious  Blood, 
and  release  you  from  your  sins,  and  make  you  partakers  of  the 
sacred  and  Holy  Eucharist."  ^ 

When  we  pass  to  post-Nicene  times,  we  find  St.  Basil  accounting 
for  the  fact  that  the  hermits  in  the  wilderness  were  accustomed 
to  carry  with  them  the  consecrated  elements,  and  administer  them 
to  themselves,  by  saying  that  it  was  done,  "  when  there  was  no 
priest."  *  St.  Hilary  shows  that  the  charge  against  St.  Chrysostom, 
of  disturbing  the  ministration  of  the  Holy  Eucharist,  could  not 
be  true,  because  Scyrus,  who  was  said  to  be  ministering  it,  was 
not  a  priest.  And  without  a  priest,  he  says,  the  Christian 
Sacrifice  could  not  be  offered.*     St.  Jerome  says  that  deacons 

'  De  Corona  Mil.  sec.  3.  *  De  Praescriptione,  sec.  41. 

3  Ep.  Ixiii.  p.  104.     (Kigali,  Paris,  1666.) 

■•  Clerici  "non  nisi  altari  et  sacrificiis  deservire  .  .  .  debeant." — Ep. 
Ixvi.  p.  109. 

*  "Sacrificia  Deo  ofiferentes,"  &c. — Ep.  bcviii.  p.  113.  Vide  also 
Ep.  Ixiii. 

«  Ap.  Con.  viii.  5.  '  Id.  ii.  33.  *  Epistle  93. 

^  "Porro  sacrificii  opus  sine  presbytero  esse  non  potuit." — Ex.  Op. 
But.  Frag.  ii.  16,  p.  1294. 


OF  THE  HOLY  EUCHAEIST.  11 

ought  not  to  rank  with  priests,  "  ad  quorum  preces  Christi 
corpus  sanguisque  conficitur ; "  ^  and  he  tells  the  Luciferians  that 
their  leader,  Hilary,  "  could  not  consecrate  the  Eucharist,  having 
with  him  neither  priests  nor  bishops."  ^ 

It  is  obvious,  then,  both  from  the  practices  of  the  first  Chris- 
tians, and  from  their  doctrines,  that  they  supposed  consecration 
to  be  the  essential  characteristic  of  the  Holy  Eucharist.  They 
considered  the  validity  of  the  ordinance  to  turn  upon  the  setting 
apart  of  the  sacred  elements ;  they  supposed  Our  Lord  to  speak 
not  of  bread  and  wine  at  large,  but  of  This,  which  He  held  in 
His  hands,  and  which  His  ministers  after  His  example  are  to 
break  and  bless.  They  would  not  otherwise  have  supposed  that 
it  was  necessary  that  a  peculiar  class  of  men  should  be  set  apart 
for  the  performance  of  this  action,  that  it  could  not  be  efi'ected 
without  a  special  commission,  and  that  on  its  validity  depended 
the  perpetuation  of  Grospel  blessings. 

It  will  throw  further  light  upon  this  subject,  if  we  compare 
the  Holy  Eucharist  with  that  which  in  many  respects  pos- 
sesses a  corresponding  character — the  sacrament  of  Baptism. 
Both  of  these  ordinances  were  instituted  by  Christ  Himself ; 
and  both  have  an  immediate  connexion  with  those  blessings 
which  He  bestows  upon  His  mystical  Body.  In  both  there  is 
an  inward  grace  and  an  outward  sign.  In  both  the  union  of 
form  and  matter  is  necessary  to  the  completeness  of  that  which 
is  outward  and  visible.  But  in  Baptism  the  inward  part  con- 
sists only  of  the  benefit  bestowed,  whereas  in  the  Holy  Eucharist, 
as  our  Catechism  reminds  us,  the  thing  signified  is  distinct  from 
the  benefit  by  which  it  is  attended.  Baptism,  that  is,  implies 
two  parts  only,  the  outward  symbol,  and  the  inward  gift ;  but 
the  Holy  Eucharist  implies  three — the  outward  sign,  the  inward 

^  Epistola  101.     Ad  Evangelum. 

^  Adv.  Luciferianos,  vol.  iv.  part  ii.  p.  302.  Vide  also  S.  Greg.  Naz. 
Or.  21,  sec.  iv.  (Paris,  1630.)  S.  Chrysostom  de  Sacerdotio,  iii.  4,  5,  and 
vi.  4.  The  Council  of  Neocassarea,  Canon  9,  and  Council  of  Gangra,  Can.  4, 
refer  to  the  consecrating  power  of  the  Priest,  as  a  matter  of  course,  and 
the  First  Council  of  Aries,  Can.  15,  speaks  of  it  as  a  monstrous  abuse,  that 
deacons  should  presume  to  consecrate. 


12  CONSECRATION  THE  CHARACTERISTIC 

part  or  thing  signified,  and  the  accompanying  blessing.  In 
Baptism,  therefore,  the  outward  sign  has  no  permanent  relation 
to  the  inward  grace,  since  the  rite  has  no  existence  save  in  the 
act  of  administration  ;  but  in  the  Holj'  Eucharist  the  outward 
sign  has  something  more  than  a  momentary  connexion  with  the 
thing  signified.  As  respects  Baptism,  therefore,  Our  Lord  used 
no  words  which  imply  that  any  particular  portion  of  the  element 
employed  is  invested  with  a  sjoecific  character :  it  was  not  this 
water,  but  the  element  at  large  which  was  sanctified  to  be  a 
pledge  of  the  "  mystical  washing  away  of  sin."  And  the  Church 
has  always  acted  upon  this  principle.  It  is  orderly  and  decent 
that  the  water  should  be  set  apart  with  prayer,  and  that  the 
ceremony  should  be  performed  by  Christ's  minister ;  but  the 
absence  of  these  conditions  does  not  invalidate  the  act,  either 
according  to  the  belief  of  the  ancient  Church,  or  according  to 
the  existing  law  of  the  Church  of  England.  For  the  setting 
apart  of  the  element  confers  only  a  relative  holiness ;  it  is  not 
necessary  to  the  validity  of  the  sacrament ;  the  inward  grace  is 
associated  with  the  act,  and  not  with  the  element ;  and  does  not 
require  that  the  outward  part  should  be  bi'ought  into  an  abiding 
relation  with  any  inward  part  or  thing  signified.  And  for  the 
same  reason,  the  intervention  of  the  minister,  however  desirable, 
is  not  essential.  A  deacon,  in  the  priest's  absence,  is  as  much 
authorized  to  baptize  as  a  priest.  No  doubt  it  might  have 
pleased  God  to  assign  the  same  limitations  in  the  case  of  Baptism 
which  obtained  in  regard  to  the  Holy  Eucharist;  but  such 
limitations  are  not  expressed  in  Scripture,  nor  has  the  thing 
been  so  understood  by  the  Church.  The  priestly  office,  indeed, 
is  essential  to  the  validity  of  Baptism,  because  without  it  there 
can  exist  no  living  branch  of  Christ's  Church,  into  which  new 
members  may  be  engrafted ;  but  its  relation  to  this  sacrament  is 
general,  and  not  specific,  because  Baptism  depends  upon  an  act 
which  all  Christians  may  perform,  and  not  upon  any  consecration 
which  requires  a  special  commission. 

Now  the  reverse  of  all  these  things  is  true  of  the   Holy 
Eucharist.     Here  it  is  not  the  element  at  large  which  is  spoken 


OF  THE  HOLY  EUCHARIST.  13 

of,    but   this   bread,    and    tliis   cup.      The   intervention    of  the 
minister  is  not  matter  of  decent  ceremonial ;  it  is  essential  to  the  t 
validity  of  the  ordinance.     For  valid  Baptism  is  that  which  isl 
ministered  to  a  competent  receiver,  but  a  valid  Eucharist  is  that\ 
which  is  received,  after  consecration  by  an  authorized  priest.  It  is  \ 
obvious,  then,  that  consecration  is  the  essential  characteristic  of 
this  sacrament,  since,  but  for  it,  the  inward  part  and  the  outward 
part  cannot  be  brought  together.     And  this  fact  is  testified  by 
that  law  of  our  Church,  which  renders  the  services  of  the  priest 
indispensable  in  the  celebration  of  the  Holy  Eucharist,  as  it  was 
testified  by  the  practice  and  assertions  of  antiquity. 

Now,  since  the  necessity  of  consecration  is  thus  attested  by  the 
very  nature  of  our  ritual,  how  comes  it  not  to  have  been  put 
more  prominently  forward  by  our  divines?  For  it  can  hardly 
be  disputed,  that  the  importance  of  consecration  has  been  little 
dwelt  upon  by  many  English  writers,  and  that  its  validity  has 
not  been  understood  by  our  people  to  be  the  circumstance  on 
which  the  efficacy  of  this  sacrament  depends.  The  reason  may 
probably  be  found  in  the  popular  unwillingness  to  break  alto- 
gether with  the  foreign  Protestants.  For  the  Protestant  bodies, 
with  the  succession  of  the  ministry,  had  lost  all  value  for  that 
act  of  consecration,  which  is  never  found  to  be  permanently 
appreciated,  when  men  have  renounced  the  ministerial  commis- 
sion, which  is  essential  to  its  reality.  Hence  it  was  felt  that  to 
dwell  upon  this  point  as  indispensable,  would  be  to  renounce  all 
connexion  with  those  communities.  This  is  obvious  from  the 
words  of  Bishop  Cosin,  though  the  reverses  which  befell  the 
Church  of  England  through  the  Great  Rebellion,  seem  to  have  led 
him  at  a  later  period  to  modify  his  opinions.  After  quoting  St. 
Augustin's  statement,  that  if  there  were  no  consecration  the  ele- 
ments would  be  no  sacrament ;  "  I  doubt,"  he  says,  "  whether 
the  Puritans'  sacrament  at  Geneva  or  elsewhere  be  not  such  an 
one  or  no ;  for  they  do  boldly  deny  any  words  of  mystical  conse- 
cration at  all."  ^  In  those  days  men  were  not  prepared  to  draw 
such  conclusions  respecting  the  necessity  of  adhering  at  all 
^  NichoUs's  Additional  Notes  on  the  Common  Prayer,  p.  48. 


14  THE  BLESSING  CONVEYED 

hazards  to  the  principles  of  the  ancient  Church,  as  the  course  of 
events,  and  the  progress  of  infidel  opinions,  have  since  forced 
upon  all  Catholic  Christians.  So  that  in  assigning  to  consecra- 
tion the  place  awarded  to  it  by  the  teaching  of  Scripture  and  the 
testimony  of  Primitive  antiquity,  we  are  not  forsaking  the  prin- 
ciples of  our  own  Church,  but  only  bringing  out  those  truths, 
which  the  circumstances  of  a  former  generation  withheld  it 
from  expressing. 


CHAPTER   II. 

EFFECT   OF   CONSECRATION,  THAT   THE   BLESSING    IS 
CONVEYED    THROUGH    THE    ELEMENTS. 

The  Consecration  of  the  elements,  then,  is  the  essential 
characteristic  of  the  Holy  Eucharist.  And  from  this  follows 
a  second  truth — that  the  inward  blessing  resulting  from  this 
ordinance  is  bestowed  through  its  outward  form.  Hereafter 
it  will  be  necessary  to  discriminate  between  the  thing  signified, 
and  the  benefit  by  which  it  is  accompanied  (res  sacramenti  and 
virtus  sacramenti);  at  present  we  may  speak  of  the  two  together, 
and  say  that  they  are  communicated  through  the  outward  and 
visible  sign.  The  consecrated  elements,  that  is,  are  not  only  a 
pledge  assuring  us  of  the  inward  gift,  but  they  are  the  means 
through  which  that  gift  is  communicated. 

And  yet  it  is  not  meant  that  this  sacrament  is  a  physical,  but 
only  a  moral  instrument  in  man's  salvation.  By  a  physical 
instrument  is  meant  one  which  acts  of  itself,  by  means  of  those 
qualities  which  are  inherent  in  it :  by  a  moral '  instrument,  one 
which  derives  its  eflficacy  from  the  perpetual  intervention  of  its 
employer's  will.  "When  a  chemist  would  precipitate  a  salt 
through  the  admixture   of  an  acid,  the  acid   employed   is   a 

'  Vide  EstiuB  in  4  Sent.  Dist.  i.  5. 


THEOUGH   THE   ELEMENTS.  15 

physical  instrument — it  acts  by  virtue  of  those  properties  which 
belong  to  it,  in  a  manner  irrespective  of  his  will.  But  the  hand 
by  which  he  pours  it  into  the  mixture  is  a  moral  agent ;  its 
action  is  not  for  a  moment  independent  of  his  causing  will. 
Now,  when  it  is  said  that  certain  inward  gifts  are  bestowed 
through  a  sacrament,  it  is  not  meant  that  they  are  so  physically 
associated  with  its  outward  form,  as  to  follow  from  it  in  the  way 
of  natural  consequence  :  the  inward  gifts  are  dependent  alto- 
gether upon  the  ordaining  will  of  Almighty  God,  who  appoints 
a  certain  external  form  as  the  means  whereby  He  bestows 
His  gifts.  So  that  a  sacrament  is  a  moral  instrument,  which 
derives  its  efficacy  from  the  perpetual  intervention  of  the  Being  ^ 
by  whom  it  has  been  appointed. 

But  it  may  be  asked,  is  not  this  the  case  respecting  creation 
at  large  ?  Do  not  all  things  which  are,  depend  upon  the 
perpetual  sustenance  of  Grod ;  the  which  were  He  to  withdraw, 
"  their  instant  annihilation  could  not  choose  but  follow  ?  "  Is  not 
this  the  necessary  result,  considering  that  the  ultimate  cause  of 
all  things  is  an  Infinite  Mind?  Must  we  not  always  come  to 
this,  if  we  mount  high  enough  in  the  chain  of  causation? 
So  that  in  one  sense  all  created  things  may  be  said  to  be 
moral  instruments,  seeing  that  their  efficacy  is  never  inde- 
pendent of  the  will  of  their  Creator.  And  what  is  meant, 
therefore,  when  we  ascribe  this  name  to  sacraments  in  particular : 
why  should  they  appropriate  a  title  which  belongs  to  all  God's 
works  ? 

The  answer  is,  that  when  we  speak  of  sacraments  as  moral 
instruments,  we  are  merely  discriminating  between  the  order 
of  grace  and  the  order  of  nature ;  we  affirm  that  sacraments 
pertain  to  the  first,  whereas  those  things  which  are  called 
physical  instruments  belong  to  the  second.  For  it  has  pleased 
God  that  the  whole  material  creation  should  obey  a  certain  set 
of  laws,  which  are  called  the  laws  of  natui'e.  Every  individual 
object,  therefore,  has  its  peculiar  dimensions,  bulk,  and  qualities ; 
and  by  virtue  of  these  does  each  act  upon  the  others,  in  a  certain 
uniform  and  appreciable  course.     The   only  exception  would 


16  THE  BLESSING  CONVEYED 

seem  to  be  those  responsible  beings,  to  whom  their  Great 
Author  has  given  that  power  of  spontaneous  action,  which 
renders  them  in  this  respect  an  image  of  Himself.  Hence  it  is 
that  we  are  able  to  speak  of  the  permanence  of  the  laws  of 
nature,  and  can  calculate  upon  the  regularity  of  their  effects. 
And  this  we  do,  without  implying  that  they  are  independent 
of  the  will  of  God,  or  can  produce  their  effects  without  His 
co-operation. 

But  in  sacraments  the  order  followed  is  not  that  of  nature, 
but  a  higher  one,  ^hich  is  referrible  to  the  immediate 
interference  of  Almighty  God.  As  a  king  might  govern  his 
dominions  by  unalterable  laws,  without  laying  down  such 
general  rules  in  his  own  familj^,  so  the  gifts  which  the  Most 
High  bestows  through  sacraments  in  the  household  of  faith, 
are  regulated  by  a  different  law  from  those  which  are  bestowed 
in  the  kingdom  of  nature.  In  the  last  there  is  nothing  which 
to  our  observation  betrays  His  interference ;  He  allows  things 
to  move  on  according  to  the  invariable  law  of  physical  causation : 
but  the  means  which  are  employed  in  the  first,  derive  their 
whole  efficacy  from  his  continual  intervention.  It  is  not  meant, 
then,  that  sacraments  are  less  certain  in  their  effects  than 
physical  agents ;  nor  yet  that  their  reality  depends  upon  those 
circumstances  in  their  receivers,  wliich  are  essential  to  their 
utility.  But  they  are  called  moral  instruments,  because  they 
derive  their  validity  from  the  immediate  appointment  of 
Him,  who  acts  in  common  according  to  that  law,  which  He 
has  imposed  upon  the  material  creation ;  because  they  belong  to 
the  order  of  grace,  and  not  to  the  order  of  nature. 

It  is  as  a  moral,  and  not  a  physical  instrument  then,  that  the 
outward  form  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  the  means  of  conveying 
the  inward  gift.  And  here  a  further  distinction  between 
Baptism  and  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  suggested  by  the  transient 
nature  of  the  one,  as  compared  with  the  continuous  nature 
of  the  other.  Since  Baptism  exists  only  in  the  act  of  its 
administration,  it  is  this  act  alone  which  can  be  the  means 
through  which  it  conveys  an  inward  gift.     And  therefore  there 


THROUGH   THE   ELEMENTS.  17 

is  no  sucli  consecration,  as  invests  the  material  employed  with 
any  permanent  efi&cacy.  It  is  otherwise  in  the  Holy  Eucharist, 
where  the  outward  part  is  consecrated  to  be  the  instrument 
through  which  there  is  a  continuous  ministration  of  the  inward 
blessing.  In  the  last  case,  therefore,  Our  Lord's  words  indicated 
that  This,  which  He  held  in  His  hands,  was  the  fixed  medium 
of  conveying  the  hidden  gift.  So  that  in  one  case  the  medium 
is  an  act,  in  the  other  an  element :  the  act  of  baptizing  is  the 
moral  instrument  in  one  instance,  the  consecrated  element  in  the 
other. 

Such  are  the  conclusions  respecting  the  character  and  ofl&ce  of 
the  subject  spoken  of,  which  follow  from  Our  Lord's  words.  And 
there  are  various  means  whereby  these  conclusions  may  be 
further  substantiated.  They  may  be  substantiated  positively 
by  the  language  and  practices  of  the  ancient  Church,  and 
negatively  by  a  consideration  of  the  results  which  follow  from 
their  denial.  Let  us  commence  with  the  latter  of  these  two 
modes  of  argument,  reserving  the  former  for  a  separate  chapter. 
The  proposition  before  us,  then,  is,  that  the  inward  gift 
bestowed  iu  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  bestowed  through  the 
consecrated  elements.  What  inconveniences  have  followed 
,  from  the  denial  of  this  truth !  The  first  person  by  whom 
lit  was  formally  denied  was  Zuinglius.  It  formed  a  step  in  his 
progress  towards  a  denial  of  the  validity  of  consecration,  and  of 
the  necessity  of  orders.  We  know  by  his  own  confession,^  that 
long  before  he  renounced  the  office  of  a  Roman  priest  he 
disbelieved  the  reality  of  those  sacred  rites  which  he  adminis- 
tered. In  this  respect  he  was  a  remarkable  contrast  to  Luther, 
a  man  of  less  acuteness,  but  of  greater  honesty  of  character. 

'  The  proofs  of  this,  from  Zuinglius's  correspondence,  are  given  by 
Plank,  "  Entstehung  des  Protestantischen  Lehrbegriffs,"  Book  v.  note 
97,  vol.  ii.  p.  257.  He  also  quotes  Luther's  contrary  assertion,  "  Ich  bin 
gefangen :  kann  nicht  heraus,"  &c. — Id.  p.  232.  Luther  refers  to  the 
circumstance  in  his  "Defens.  Verb.  Csense."  "Zuinglius  confitetur,  quod 
id  in  vita  sua  nunquam  crediderit." — Works,  x.  vol.  vii.  f.  390.  He  may 
allude  to  the  words  of  Zuinglius  :  "  Nemo  nostrlim  (sub  Papatu)  unquam 
vere  credidit,  se  in  isto  pane  tale  quiddam  edere,  quod  somniavimus." — 
Hospinian,  vol.  ii.  p.  46. 

C 


18  THE  BLESSING  CONVEYED 

From  this  covert  unbelief  Zuinglius  gradually  mounted  up  to  an 
open  denial  of  the  reality  of  the  work  effected  by  consecration, 
and  of  the  commission  of  the  priesthood.  Thus  he  did  not  begin, 
like  Luther,  by  assailing  manifest  abuses,  but  attacked  that 
which  is  common  to  Christianity  at  large.  His  course,  however, 
was  acceptable  enough  to  his  democratic  countrjinen,  who  were 
well  pleased  to  be  taught  that  the  ministerial  office  was  not 
a  trust  committed  to  men  by  Christ,  but  was  derived  from  the 
free  choice  of  every  congregation.'  For  it  followed  that  the 
clergy  must  be  responsible  to  those  from  whom  their  authority 
proceeded. 

It  must  not  be  supposed,  however,  that  Zuinglius  denied  the 
weakness  of  man,  or  the  necessity  of  grace.  He  differed  from 
the  Socinian  school,  which  followed  in  his  steps,  in  that  he 
recognised  the  need  of  spiritual  assistance,  and  attributed  to  it 
the  whole  work  of  man's  recovery.  The  point  of  contrast 
between  his  doctrine  and  that  of  the  ancient  Church  was,  that  he 
failed  to  recognize  Our  Lord's  Humanity,  either  as  the  means 
whereby  He  intercedes  for  His  brethren  with  the  Father,  or 
whereby  He  communicates  to  them  divine  gifts.  Now  this,  in 
truth,  was  to  deny  the  mediation  of  Christ.  That  Zuinglius 
really  fell  into  this  error,  appears  from  his  saying  that  Our 
Lord's  Body  and  Blood  are  not  introduced  in  this  ordinance 
by  reason  of  any  present  influence  which  they  exert,  but  only 
because  they  were  the  media  through  which  He  wrought  that 
work  of   atonement,  which  He  formerly  ^   effected.      And,  in 

'  Guerike's  Kirclieu-Geschichte,  p.  806. 

*  "Per  manducationem  ergo  sui  corporis,  et  bibitionem  sui  sanguinis, 
nihil  aliud  intelligit,  quain  fidere  morte  sua,  quam  pro  nobis  pertulit." — 
Zuinglias  in  Ilospinian.,  vol.  ii.  p.  48.  And  in  his  Siibtiidium  <le  Eiuha- 
ridia,  he  says  that  believers  "have  no  need  of  Christ,  according  to  the 
flesh,  for  they  know  that  His  flesh  would  not  profit  them  if  they  eat  it  i 
but  it  is  of  great  profit  to  believe  that  Christ  has  been  slain  for  you  in 
the  flesh,"  &c. — ZaiiKjliass  Worhs,  vol.  ii.  f.  245.  And  he  speaks  of  him- 
self as  having  advanced  so  far  "  ut  carneni  illam  externam  et  corpoream 
ad  salutis  summam  nihil  conducere  intelligeremus." — Id.  ii.  f.  "273.  On 
St.  John,  vi.  p.  51,  he  says:  "Camem  hie  pro  morte  et  passione  Christi 
accipi,  (jiiod  ha-c  in  came  facta  sit."  And  again  :  "  Corpus  pro  morte 
ponitur,  quouiam  mors  in  corpore." — Work»,  Id.  iii.  f.  308. 


THROUGH  THE   ELEMENTS.  19 

consequence,  he  was  at  a  loss  to  explain  why  Our  Lord's  Body 
and  Blood  should  be  spoken  of  as  occupying  any  place  in  His 
present  dealings  with  mankind,  and  why  they  should  have  been 
introduced  in  that  peculiar  and  emphatic  manner  which  Our 
Lord  was  pleased  to  adopt  at  the  Last  Supper.  For  according 
to  his  system,  the  Holy  Eucharist  does  not  depend  upon 
Christ's  acts  towards  us,  but  upon  our  acts  towards  Him ;  it  is 
not  the  presence  of  Christ  living,  but  the  remembrance  of 
Christ  dead} 

In  this  way  it  was  that  Zuinglius  arrived  at  the  theory 
which  he  declared  to  be  characteristic  of  the  Holy  Eucharist, 
and  which  he  substituted  for  that  belief  in  the  efficacy  of  conse- 
cration which  had  previously  been  received.  Having  denied 
that  the  benefit  bestowed  was  bestowed  through  the  elements,  he 
defended  his  system  by  asserting  that  the  characteristic  of  the 
ordinance  was  not  the  consecration  of  the  elements,  but  the 
disposition  of  the  receiver.  The  Holy  Eucharist,  he  said,  was 
not  the  communication  of  any  objective  gift,  but  merely  a  mode 
of  giving  expression  to  our  own  subjective  feelings.  Its  advantage 
was  only  that  it  was  a  means  of  obtaining  those  spiritual  gifts 
which  God  bestows  equally  upon  all  occasions.  So  that  the 
sole  circumstance  which  leads  to  the  employment  of  those 
particular  emblems  which  are  used  in  this  ordinance,  is  merely 
that  the  feelings  of  men  are  thereby  associated  with  the  past 
actions  of  Our  Saviour. 

Such  was  the  first  theory  which  was  substituted  for  the 
ancient  belief  in  the  reality  of  consecration.      It  affirmed  the 

'  In  a  letter  to  Luther,  Zuinglius  denied  altogether  that  Our  Lord's 
Body  was  "  vivificans  in  mysterio  virtute  Spiritus  Divini." — Eljiri.rd's  Dog- 
ma vom  Ileil.  Ahe.mhnahl,  ii.  258.  This  appears  to  be  what  is  meant 
by  Claude,  when  he  says  that  Our  Lord's  Body  and  Blood  act  "  en  quality 
de  causes  mtlritoires  qui  agissent  moralement,  ou  de  causes  motives,  qui 
non  seulement  produisent  leurs  efiets  etant  absentes,  mais  meme  lors- 
qu'elles  ne  sont  pas  encore." — Secoiule  Reponse,  321.  And  therefore  Zuin- 
glius says,  "  Quid  caro  manducata  super  his  omnibus  faceret,  non  invenie- 
bamus  in  divinis  oraculis." — Hospiiiian,  vol.  ii.  p.  47.  "Carnem  hanc 
nihil  morantur,  contenti  credidisse  eam  pro  nobis  mactatam  esse." — 
Zuiuglitis,  vol.  ii.  fol.  245. 

C    2 


\J 


20  THE  BLESSING  CONVEYED 

Holy  Eucharist  to  derive  its  efficacy  merely  from  the  intention 
of  the  receiver.  And  hence  it  hannonized  well  enough  with  the 
system  which  a  denial  of  the  ministerial  commission  involves, 
that  every  individual  is  designed  to  gain  salvation  for  himself, 
by  applying  the  general  truths  of  Scripture  to  his  own  ])enefit. 
For  whatever  prominence  is  assigned  to  the  Holy  Eucharist 
among  the  means  of  grace,  its  main  condition,  according  to  this 
view  of  things,  may  be  secured  thi'ough  the  secret  action  of  the 
individual  mind.  Such  a  notion  was  diametrically  opposed  to 
the  belief  that  in  this  ordinance  the  outward  elements  are  the 
means  of  conveying  any  inward  gift.  This  belief  results  from 
the  conviction  that  our  glorified  Head  is  still  bestowing  gifts 
upon  His  people,  through  the  communication  of  His  exalted 
Humanity.  But  Zuinglius  maintained  that  the  Holy  Eucharist 
has  reference  only  to  Christ  as  He  was  once  a  Mediator  upon 
earth,  and  not  to  Christ  as  He  is  still  a  Mediator  in  heaven.  The 
Church-system  implies  that  the  Holy  Eucharist  has  been 
ordained  as  the  appointed  medium  through  which  the  benefits 
of  Our  Lord's  humanity  may  be  communicated  to  men.  But 
Zuinglius,  though  allowing  that  all  things  may  be  occasions  of 
obtaining  grace,  because  they  may  incite  the  mind  to  seek  it, 
yet  denied  absolutely  that  grace  was  conveyed  ^  or  communicated 
by  any  sacrament.  According  to  the  Church-system,  the  words 
of  institution  possess  a  living  power ;  but  Zuinglius  supposed 
them  to  be  a  mere  dead  history.  So  that  if  there  was  any  sacred- 
ness  at  all  in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  he  supposed  it  to  lie,  not  in  the 
elements,  but  in  the  transaction  at  large  ;  and  tlie  faith  of  each 
receiver  was  the  sole  consecrating  principle  which  he  admitted. 
Now  there  are  two  main  errors  with  which  this  theory  is 
chargeable ;  one  relating  more  immediately  to  the  Holy 
Eucharist  itself,  the  other  to  the  nature  of  Him  who  thus 
vouclisafcs  to  communicate  Himself.  If  the  Holy  Eucharist  be 
nothing  but  the  eating  a  specified  kind  of  food  in  remembrance 

*  "  Credo,  imo  scio,  omnia  sacramenta  tarn  abesse,  ut  gratiam  conferant, 
ut  ne  adferant  quidem  aut  dispensent." — A'l  Car.  Imp.  Fidei  Ratio. 
Nicmeyer  Collectio  Con/ess.  p.  24. 


THROUGH  THE   ELEMENTS,  21 

of  Christ,  what  is  to  distinguish  this  act  from  any  ordinary- 
meal  which  is  partaken  by  Christians  ?  For  ought  not  devout 
men  to  do  every  thing  in  the  name  of  Christ,  and  with 
reference  to  Him '?  At  any  rate,  if  this  ordinance  turn  exclusively 
upon  the  intention  of  the  receiver,  it  is  obvious  that  men's 
common  food  might  at  any  moment  be  converted,  by  a  secret  act 
of  their  will,  into  the  Eucharistic  symbols.  Now  such  a  system 
is  not  only  at  variance  with  those  feelings  of  reverence  towards 
the  Holy  Eucharist  which  have  prevailed  universally  among 
Christians,  but  it  fails  to  account  for  various  emphatic  passages 
of  Holy  Scripture,  in  which  the  Humanity  of  the  Second  Adam 
is  set  forth  as  communicated  in  some  mysterious  manner  in  this 
sacrament. 
^  But  a  further  evil  results  from  that  denial  of  Our  Lord's 
j  mediation,  which  the  theory  of  Zuinglius  involves.  His  system 
■  turns  upon  the  notion  that  the  action  of  the  Divine  Spirit  has 
superseded  that  of  the  God-man ;  and  consequently,  that  Our 
Lord  exercises  no  present  influence  through  that  ordinance, 
whereby  He  communicates  Himself.  Now  this  principle,  when 
carried  out  into  its  results,  is  a  form  of  Sabellianism :  ^  it 
supposes  the  Second  and  Third  Persons  in  the  Ever-Blessed 
Trinity  to  be  merely  successive  modifications  of  the  One  Divine 
Power ;  and  that  the  functions  of  the  one  supersede  those  of  the 
other.  Otherwise,  why  should  not  the  Second  Person  in  the 
Blessed  Grodhead  continue  to  bestow  those  gracious  gifts  which 
He  once  made  His  humanity  the  instrument  of  conveying  ?  If 
this  is  no  longer  possible,  it  must  be  because  the  action  of  God 
the  Holy  Ghost  has  done  away  in  some  measure  with  that  of  the 
Incarnate  Son.  And  hence  it  will  follow  that  the  distinction 
between  these  Blessed  Persons  does  not  lie  in  their  own  eternal 
nature,  but  only  in  their  relation  to  the  created  Universe. 

The  Zuinglian  theory,  then,  is  untenable,  not  only  on  account 

of  its  irreverent  dealing  with  this  holy  sacrament,  but  also  because 

it  fails  to  do  justice  to  the  nature  and  operations  of  the  Incarnate 

Son.     This  was  felt  by  Calvin,  when  the  death  of  Zuinglius 

'  This  subject  will  be  treated  more  at  length  in  the  10th  chapter. 


22  THE  BLESSING  CONVEYED 

threw  into  his  hands  the  guidance  of  the  new  opinions  in 
Switzerland.  No  one  spoke  with  greater  force  or  fuhiess  on  the 
office  of  Our  Lord's  Humanity,'  and  he  was  ohviously  disposed  to 
assign  to  it  an  influence  which  had  not  been  attributed  to  it  by 
Zuinglius.  It  followed  tluit  he  could  not  suppose  the  force  and 
efficacy  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  to  depend  merely  upon  the 
disposition  of  the  receiver,^  because  the  necessary  consequence  of 
such  a  supposition  is  to  destroy  all  belief  in  the  objective  reality 
of  the  gift.  And  yet  he  was  not  less  indisposed  than  Zuinglius 
to  admit  the  validity^  of  consecration,  or  the  necessity  of 
orders.  Against  this  he  was  pledged,  not  only  hj  his  party  and 
principles,  but  by  the  fact  that  he  himself  exercised  ministerial 
functions  without  ordination.  So  that  it  was  necessary  to  his 
position  to  find  some  third  alternative,  which,  without  involving 
the  validity  of  consecration,  might  yet  put  this  sacrament  upon 
a  higher  ground  than  had  been  taken  by  his  predecessors. 

Now  it  is  obvious  that  a  gift  bestowed  by  one  party  upon 
another,  may  be  important  either  in  consequence  of  the  value  of 
the  gift  itself,  or  by  reason  of  considerations  derived  from  the 
parties  concerned  in  the  giving  and  receiving.  The  ordinary 
food,  which  sustains  us,  is  an  instance  of  the  first  kind  :  it  has 
its  value  in  itself ;  it  is  the  physical  instrument  of  our  support. 
We  may  find  examples  of  the  other  sort  in  the  Old  Testament. 
The  "  ribbon  of  blue,"  which  the  Israelites  received  as  an 
article  of  dress  by  God's  appointment,  was  of  no  value  in 
itself :  its  effect  was  derived  solely  from  the  associations  to 
which  it  gave  rise  in  the  minds  of  the  wearers.  Here  then  was 
a  gift,  which  was  only  rendered  important  by  the  state  of  the 
receivei'.  Again,  when  it  pleased  God  to  put  His  Bow  in  the 
cloud,  here  was  a  thing  which  neither  was  of  value  in  itself,  nor 
yet  derived  it  from  the  disposition  of  the  spectator.  The  Bow 
had  no  tendency  to  prevent  a  deluge  ;    it  only  expressed  the 

'  Vide  a  striking  passage  in  Calvin's  Institutes,  Lib.  iv.  17.  7,  8,  9. 

*  "  Kespondeo  non  sic  intelligendinn  quod  dixi,  quasi  ab  ejus  qui  recipit 
conditione  aut  arbitrio  vis  et  Veritas  sacramenti  pendeat." — Iitstit.  iv.  14. 16. 

•'  He  objects  to  rest  upon  "  consecratio  "  as  being  "  uiagica  iucantatio." 
— bust.  iv.  17.  15. 


THEOTJGH  THE   ELEMENTS.  23 

Intention  of  Him  who  put  it  there.  So  that  we  have  three 
different  ways  in  which  a  gift  may  be  important ;  first,  from  its 
own  value  ;  secondly,  from  the  state  of  the  receiver  ;  thirdly,  as 
expressive  of  the  intention  of  the  giver. 

Let  us  apply,  then,  these  principles  to  that  sacred  gift  which 
was  bestowed  by  Our  Lord  when  He  employed  the  words  of 
Institution.  On  which  of  these  three  grounds  are  we  to  rest 
the  importance  of  the  gift  which  He  conferred,  when  He  said, 
"  This  is  My  Body  ?  "  Those  who  maintain  the  validity  of  con- 
secration, of  course  adopt  the  first :  they  suppose  His  blessing  to 
have  bestowed  its  value  upon  the  gift  which  He  communicated. 
Zuinglius  took  the  second  alternative :  he  maintained  that  the 
significance  of  the  gift  was  derived  entirely  from  the  receiver. 
Calvin  adopted  the  third  hypothesis,  as  enabling  him  to  do 
justice  to  the  importance  of  this  sacrament,  without  admitting 
the  necessity  of  consecration.  He  said  that  its  effect  did  not 
arise  out  of  the  state  of  the  receiver,  nor  yet  depend  upon  the 
value  of  that  which  was  conveyed  in  the  elements,  but  that 
respect  must  be  had  exclusively  to  the  intention  of  the  Giver. 

This  threefold  view  of  things  shows  itself  in  the  various 
definitions  which  have  been  given  of  the  word  sacrament.  Those 
who  retain  their  belief  in  consecration,  will  readily  accept  that 
of  Peter  Lombard,  which  Bishop  Overall  has  amplified,  "  invisi- 
bilis  gratise  visibilis  causa."  ^  According  to  Zuiuglius,  the 
definition  of  a  sacrament  grows  entirely  out  of  a  consideration  of 
the  receiver ;  it  is  a  public  testimony  of  that  grace  which  each 
individual  possesses,^  or  "  a  means  by  which  a  man  displays  him- 
self to  the  Church."  ^  But  Calvin  states  it  to  be  the  main  end 
of  sacraments  "  that  God  may  by  them  testify,  represent,  and 
seal  His  favour  to  us."  *     The  Divine  intention,  then,  according 

^  Lib.  Sentent.  iv.  Dist.  1,  2. 

2  "Testimonium  publicum  ejus  gratise,  quae  cuique  private  prius  adest." 
— Fidei  Rat.  ad  Car.  Imp.  in  Niemeijers  Collectio  Confess,  p.  25. 

^  "  Sunt  sacramenta  signa  ....  quibus  se  homo  ecclesiae  probat,"  &c. — 
Be  Vera  et  Falsa  Eeligione. 

*  "Ut  per  ea  nobis  gratiam  suam  testetur  Deus,  representet,  atque 
obsignet." — Consens.  Tigur.  vii.  Niemeyer,  p.  193.     This   confession  ex- 


24  THE  BLESSING  CONVEYED 

to  him,  is  the  thing  to  be  considered  in  the  Holy  Eucharist. 
The  elements  are  not  to  be  looked  upon  as  an  instrument  of 
effecting  any  thing,  but  merely  as  indications  of  tlie  purpose  of 
God.  For  at  the  same  moment  when  these  pledges  are  exhibited 
to  the  lips,  it  pleases  God  to  produce  a  supernatural  relation 
between  Our  Lord's  Humanity  and  the  renewed  soul.  Respect- 
ing the  means  by  which  this  relation  is  effected,  Calvin  spoke 
uncertainly  ;  whether  it  was  by  the  raising  of  the  soul  to  heaven, 
or  by  some  spiritual  but  undefined  presence  of  Our  Lord's 
Humanity  upon  earth.  A  recent  writer,'  who  has  undertaken 
to  perfect  and  extend  his  theory,  sees  in  it  the  germ  of  the 
opinion,  that  the  essence  of  matter  is  spiritual,  and  maintains 
that  when  Calvin  affirmed  Our  Lord  to  be  spiritually  present, 
he  meant  that  according  to  the  essential  part  of  His  human 
nature.  Our  Lord  was  really  present  to  the  receiver.  Calvin 
certainly  uses  ambiguous  phrases,  on  which  such  a  construction 
might  be  put ;  though  his  real  meaning  appears  to  have  been 
that  the  soul  was  lifted  up  into  heaven  : '"  but  the  point  upon 
which  he  insists  is  merely  that  the  inward  benefit  of  the  Holy 
Euchai-ist  is  the  union  which  takes  place  between  Christ  and  the 
receiver's  soul. 

By  this  theory  Calvin  designed  at  once  to  leave  room  for 
those  strong  expressions  which  Holy  Scrijiture  and  the  ancient 
writers  used  respecting  the  Holy  Eucharist,  and  yet  to  obviate 

hibited  Calvin'b  matured  views.  And  his  shorter  definition  of  a  sacra- 
ment in  his  Institutes  is,  " Diviiuv  in  /uw  gratix  teMimonium,  externo 
nvjno  ainjirmatum  cum  mutua  nostrse  erga  ipsum  pietatis  testihcatione." 
— iv.  14.  1. 

*  Vide  Ebrard's  Dogma  vom  Heiligen  Abendmahl,  vol.  ii.  pp.  556,  658. 

^  "Quasi  vero  si  ad  se  nos  evehat,  non  seque  potiamur  pniisentia." — 
IiDitit.  iv.  17.  81.  And  so  the  thing  is  expresseil  in  the  several  confessions. 
The  first  Scotch  says,  "Nos  vera  fide  super  omnia  qu;c  videntur  .  .  .  vehit, 
et  ut  vescamur  corpore  et  sanguine  Jesu  Christi,  semel  pro  nobis  eflfusi  et 
fracti,  efficit,  (iuod(iue  nunc  est  in  coelo,"  &c. — Xiemcijer,  p.  353.  It  will 
be  shown  in  the  se([uel  how  nearly  this  passes  into  the  theory  of  Zuinglius, 
that  Our  Lord  is  merely  an  object  to  the  intellect  of  men. — Vide  Imtf.  iv. 
17.  18.  For  our  relation  to  Christ  is  affirmed  by  Calvin  to  be  like  that 
of  St.  Stephen,  whose  eyes,  he  says,  were  miraculously  strengthened,  so 
that  he  aaw  into  heaven. — Vide  Answer  to  JJeshiu.  Works,  viii.  728. 


THROUGH   THE   ELEMENTS.  25 

the  necessity  of  admitting  the  sacredness  of  the  elements,  and  of 
letting  in  the  validity  of  consecration  and  of  orders.  For  no 
words  could  be  too  strong  to  employ  respecting  the  benefit  of 
this  sacrament,  supposing  it  was  allowed  to  be  the  actual  enjoy- 
ment of  that  union  with  Christ,  the  possession  of  which  is  the 
life  of  the  soul.  For  to  be  "  in  Christ,"  is  to  be  "  a  new 
creature."  But  this  involved  no  kind  of  sacredness  in  the 
elements.  They  were  merely  signs,  or  pledges,  with  which 
the  Supreme  Giver  vouchsafed  to  accompany  the  inward  work 
which  He  was  performing.  A  seal,  or  pledge,  does  not  in  any 
way  partake  of  the  character  of  that  which  it  certifies  :  it  is  only 
an  assurance  of  the  intention  of  the  party  by  whom  it  is  given, 
and  its  validity  is  guaranteed  by  his  ability  and  his  truth.  Such, 
maintained  Calvin,  was  the  sole  purpose  of  the  elements ;  they 
neither  require  consecration,  nor  are  they  the  means  of  com- 
municating any  gift :  they  are  merely  like  "  the  seals  of  a 
deed,"  ^  and  convey  to  us  an  assurance  of  God's  inward 
action. 

But  can  it  be  intended  that  all  who  receive  the  elements  with 
their  lips,  are  spirituallj'^  united  to  Christ  Our  Lord  ?  Do  all 
such  persons  receive  that  gift  of  oneness  with  Our  Lord's 
Humanity,  which  implies  the  life  of  the  soul  ?  This  cannot  be 
intended.  Yet  it  would  seem  to  be  required  by  the  terms  of 
Calvin's  argument.  For  the  elements,  according  to  his  theory, 
are  like  the  chain  and  purple  with  \\hich  Daniel  was  clothed, 
and  which  implied  that  he  already  enjoyed  the  favour  of  the 
Babylonish  monarch.  Calvin's  statement  is,  that  the  elements 
are  the  seal  of  a  charter,  or  title-deed,  whereby  Our  Lord,  gives 
expression  to  the  relation  which,  at  the  moment  of  delivery.  He 
establishes  between  His  own  Humanity  and  the  receiver's  soul. 
Now,  since  the  very  principle  of  a  bond  or  charter  is  that  it 
pledges  the  party  who  executes  it,  why  does  not  this  inward 
result  always  go  along  with  the  delivery  of  the  external  sign  ? 


'  "Diplomatum  Sigilla." — Imt.  iv.  14.  5.     He  compares  ttem  to  the 
Bow  in  the  Cloud. — Ind.  iv.  14.  18. 


26  THE   BLESSING  CONVEYED 

Yet  this  cannot  be ;  for  the  inward  result,  according  to  Calvin, 
is  the  union  of  the  soul  with  Christ,  and  the  soul  cannot  be 
united  to  Christ  except  it  lives. 

It  is  no  sufficient  answer  to  this  difficulty  to  reply  that  such 
a  result  is  put  within  the  reach  of  all,  although  none  but  devout 
communicants  avail  themselves  of  their  opportunities.  It  may 
be  said  that  though  this  answer  would  be  inconsistent  with  the 
principles  of  a  Calvinist,  yet  that  it  ought  to  satisfy  those  who 
suppose  that  all  men  receive  such  grace  as  is  sufficient  for  their 
salvation.  But  to  make  such  a  reply  is  to  give  up  the  very 
merit  of  Calvin's  system.  His  superiority  to  Zuinglius  was, 
that  he  did  not  suppose  the  Holy  Eucharist  to  be  merely  an 
occasion  on  which  God  bestowed  the  general  succours  of  grace, 
but  that  he  asserted  it  to  carry  along  with  it  a  specific  and 
peculiar  blessing,  namely,  that  relation  to  Christ  which  results 
from  oneness  with  His  glorified  Humanity.  Thus  did  he  at 
once  account  for  the  title  assigned  to  the  elements,  by  reference 
to  the  real  character  of  that  with  which  they  were  connected, 
and  afford  an  opening  also  for  all  those  statements,  whether  in 
Scripture  or  the  Fathers,  whereby  the  mysterious  sacredness  of 
this  ordinance  is  expressed.  He  was  able,  consequently,  to 
accept  St.  Cyril's  language  respecting  the  efficacy  of  Our  Lord's 
Flesh,  and  his  followers  have  always  boasted  that  the  highest 
conceptions  on  this  subject  find  a  place  in  their  creed. 

Now,  with  such  a  view  of  things,  it  was  essential  for  Calvin 
to  point  out  why  the  outward  pledges,  by  which  the  Divine 
Giver  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  expressed  His  intention,  were  not 
always  attended  by  the  desired  result.  It  would  not  do  for  him 
to  fall  back  upon  the  notion,  that  the  thing  bestowed  in  the 
Holy  Eucharist  was  merely  the  preliminary  assistance  of  God's 
grace,  for  that  would  have  been  to  abandon  the  capital  truth, 
that  the  inward  part  in  this  sacrament  was  the  actual  Humanity 
of  the  Son  of  God.  So  that  the  difficulty  recurs,  does  this 
relation  of  the  soul  to  Christ  take  place  whenever  the  elements 
are  received  by  the  lips  ;  and  since  it  jilainly  cannot  take  effect 
except  in  those  who  are  in  a  state  of  spiritual  life,  how  can  we 


THEOUGH   THE   ELEMENTS.  27 

speak  with  truth  of  the  outward  elements  as  being  the  pledge  of 
an  inward  blessing  ? 

Calvin's  answer  to  this  must  be  sought  in  that  which  was 
laid  down  as  the  foundation  of  his  system,  that  the  importance  of 
the  Holy  Eucharist  arose  neither  out  of  the  value  of  the  gift 
which  it  conferred,  nor  yet  from  a  consideration  of  the  receiver, 
but  from  its  expressing  the  intention  of  Almighty  God.  The 
outward  elements  therefore  are,  as  it  were,  a  deed  or  charter,  by 
which  the  Supreme  Being  binds  Himself  to  bestow  the  gift  of 
Christ's  Presence  simultaneously  upon  the  soul  of  the  receiver. 
But  this  charter  is  limited  by  a  secret  article^  by  which 
Almighty  God  has  assigned  some  of  His  creatures  to  bliss,  and 
others  to  misery.  To  the  former  only  are  the  elements  really 
the  seal  of  an  inward  gift :  to  the  latter  they  are  but  the  empty 
eating  of  bread  and  wine.  So  that  the  objection  against  Calvin's 
theory  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  is,  that  it  involves  that  dogma  of 
reprobation,  which  is  the  opprobrium  of  his  system.  And  as  the 
theory  of  Zuinglius  has  been  shown  to  be  inconsistent  with  the 
first  principles  of  Christian  piety,  so  is  Calvin's  with  any  due 
respect  for  the  declarations  of  Scripture  and  the  character  of 
God.  And  thus  are  we  thrown  back  upon  the  reality  of  con- 
secration, and  upon  a  belief  that  the  inward  gift  in  the  Holy 
Eucharist  is  bestowed  through  the  outward  form. 

Such  is   the  negative  argument  in   favour  of  the   Church- 

'  "Ait  quidem  Calvinus  et  recte,  prodesse  nullis  sacramenta,  nisi  prse- 
destinatis." — Whitaker,  Preelect.  i.  3.  So  in  the  Consensus  Tigurinus,  in 
which  Calvin  joined  with  the  divines  of  Zurich,  A.D.  1549,  "Sedulo  doce- 
mus,  Deuin  non  promiscue  vim  suam  exercere  in  omnibus,  qui  sacra- 
menta recipiunt,  sed  tantum  electis." — sec.  16.  "Eeprobis  perseque  ut 
electis  signa  administrantur ;  Veritas  autem  signorum  ad  hos  solos  per- 
venit." — sec.  17.  Niemeyer,  p.  195.  So  in  the  Confess.  Belgica,  sec.  35, 
Niemeyer,  p.  385.  And  so  in  the  Institutes,  speaking  of  the  reception  of 
Christ,  he  says,  "reprobos  ab  ejus  participatione  arceri." — iv.  17.  34; 
and  vide  iv.  14.  17.  And  in  his  Tract  " De  vera  Participatione,"  he 
points  out  that  his  doctrine  of  Decrees  is  a  substitute  for  the  efficacy  of 
consecration.  He  says,  "Non  esse  inclusam  Spiritus  gratiam  aut  virtu- 
tem  extemis  signis :  quia  nee  aequaliter  nee  promiscue  omnibus  prosunt, 
....  sed  Deum  libere,  prout  visum  est,  Sacramentis  uti,  ut  electis  admi- 
nicula  sint  in  salutem,  aliis  nihil  conferant  adeoque  cedant  in  exitium." — 
Works,  vol.  viii.  p.  743. 


28  THE  BLESSING  CONVEYED 

system  of  the  Holy  Eucharist,  which  is  derived  from  a  con- 
siderution  of  the  opposing  theories.  It  has  been  shown  that  the 
importance  of  that  which  Our  Lord  gave  to  His  disciples,  must 
either  have  arisen  from  the  value  of  the  gift  itself,  or  from  a 
consideration  of  the  parties  concerned  in  the  giving  and  receiving. 
Thus  arose  the  three  systems,  of  which  alone  the  case  admits ; 
the  benefit  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  either  conveyed  through 
the  elements,  or  else  it  deiDends  merely  ujion  the  disposition  of 
the  receiver,  or  upon  the  intention  of  the  Giver.  So  that  to 
show  the  untenable  nature  of  the  two  latter  hypotheses,  is  to 
'  establish  the  first. 

Neither  is  it  any  answer  to  this  mode  of  argument  to  say  that 
these  three  systems  may  possibly  coalesce,  so  that  the  efficacy 
6i  the  Holy  Eucharist  may  depend  upon  their  combined  efiect. 
For  it  is  not  denied  either  that  it  is  the  intention  of  the 
Supreme  Being  to  give  effect  to  His  ordinance ;  or  that  the 
Holy  Eucharist  is  inefficacious,  unless  there  be  a  devout  receiver. 
The  thing  objected  to  in  the  theories  of  Calvin  and  Zuinglius 
is,  not  that  they  insist  upon  these  conditions,  but  that  they  sub- 
stitute  them  for  the  validity  of  consecration.  These  conditions  are 
fully  recogmzed  in  the  Church-system,  but  they  are  not  allowed 
such  exclusive  weight,  as  may  render  consecration  unnecessary. 

(Whereas,  to  admit  the  theories  of  Calvin  and  Zuinglius,  is  to 
attribute  everything  either  to  the  disposition  of  the  receiver,  or 
to  the  intention  of  the  Giver.  It  has  been  shown  how  untenable 
is  each  of  these  two  hypotheses ;  but  before  we  proceed  to 
produce  positive  evidence  in  behalf  of  that  system  which  remains, 
there  are  two  important  conclusions  which  require  to  be  noticed. 
Eirst — It  has  been  seen  that  there  are  two  counter  theories, 
which  oppose  the  belief  that  the  inward  gift  in  the  Holy 
Eucharist  is  bestowed  through  the  elements.  Now  it  is 
important  to  remember  that  both  these  theories  might  be 
adduced  as  proofs  of  the  statement  with  which  the  present 
chai)ter  commenced.  For  though  both  contain  a  denial  that  the 
gift  is  bestowed  through  the  elements,  yet  both  im])ly  that  this 
truth  could  not  be  denied,  if  the  validity  of  consecration  were 


THROUGH  THE  ELEMENTS,  29 

admitted.  It  was  the  object  both  of  Zuinglius  and  Calvin 
to  deny  the  reality  of  consecration,  inasmuch  as  it  brought  along 
with  it  that  whole  system  of  the  Priesthood  to  which  they  were 
opposed.  It  was  with  a  view  to  exclude  this  belief  that  they 
denied  that  the  ijg.ward  gift  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  bestowed 
through  the  elements.  Their  opposition  to  this  conclusion  was 
founded  on  their  hostility  to  the  principle  out  of  which  it  arose. 
We  have  seen  the  groundlessness  of  their  objections  ;  they  produce 
no  good  reasons  for  denying  that  the  inward  gift  in  the  Holy 
Eucharist  is  communicated  through  the  outward  form.  But  we 
have  no  reason  to  question  their  authority,  when  they  affirm  this 
belief  to  be  the  necessary  result  of  admitting  consecration  :  they 
are  witnesses  that  none,  who  allow  consecration,  ought  to  deny  that 
the  gift  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  bestowed  through  the  elements. 

Secondly — The  considerations  w^hich  have  been  adduced,  show 
that  the  dogma  of  an  Absolute  Decree  is  the  corner-stone  of 
Calvin's  system  of  the  Holy  Eucharist,  and  that  its  removal 
must  be  fatal  to  the  whole  superstructure.  For  it  is  through 
this  dogma  alone  that  he  is  enabled  at  once  to  dispense  with  a 
belief  in  consecration,  and  yet  to  do  justice  to  the  solemn  and 
mysterious  nature  of  the  inward  ordinance.  Let  this  dogma 
be  taken  away,  and  his  system  falls  down  at  once  into  Zuin- 
glianism.  For  if  the  inward  gift  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  be  not 
the  very  Presence  of  Christ's  Humanity,  but  merely  that  general 
assistance  of  God's  grace  which  belongs  equally  to  all  ordinances, 
there  is  then  no  ground  for  those  lofty  expressions  which  were 
used  respecting  this  sacrament  in  early  times,  nor  anything 
unreasonable  in  the  statements  of  Zuinglius,  that  its  peculiarity 
lay  only  in  its  signal  fitness  to  affect  the  heart.  It  is  only 
therefore  by  his  notion  of  an  Absolute  Decree,  whereby  he  limits 
its  communication  to  the  elect,  that  Calvin  is  able  to  lift  this 
ordinance  to  the  level  assigned  to  it  by  Scripture  and  Antiquity. 

We  may  understand,  then,  what  has  been  the  result,  when 
the  natural  repulsiveness  of  the  dogma  of  an  Absolute  Decree 
has  led  Calvin's  followers  to  drop  it  from  their  system.  The 
necessary  effect  has  been,  that  their  belief  respecting  the  Holy 


so  THE  BLESSING  CONVEYED 

Eucharist  has  settled  down  unconsciously  to  the  level  of 
Zuinglianism.  And  hence  have  arisen  those  consequences — a 
total  irreverence  as  regards  this  sacrament,  and  a  practical 
disbelief  in  the  pennanent  action  of  Our  Lord's  Humanity — 
which  have  been  shown  to  be  the  result  of  the  latter  system. 
Nor  has  this  process  been  confined  to  those  countries  in  which 
Calvin's  system  professedly  bore  sway.  It  would  be  idle  to 
deny  that  his  theory  on  the  sacraments  has  exercised  a  large 
influence  upon  our  own  writers.  It  could  liardly  be  otherwise, 
considering  that  his  Institutes  were  a  Text-book  for  nearly 
a  century ;  and  considering  the  attractions  of  a  system  which 
promised  a  security  against  the  abuses  of  a  carnal  intei-pretation, 
without  detracting  from  that  mysterious  reverence  with  which 
this  sacrament  had  always  been  regarded.  Hence,  many  of  his 
expressions  passed  unconsciously  into  the  circulation  of  the 
English  Church.  The  notion  that  the  elements  are  mere  seals 
or  title-deeds,  and  not  the  instruments  through  which  Christ's 
Presence  is  dispensed — that  is,  that  they  are  pledges  only  of  an 
absent,  and  not  media  of  a  present  gift — was  adopted,  in  igno- 
rance that  this  theory  was  inconsistent  with  that  principle  of 
consecration  which  still  retained  its  place  in  our  formularies ; 
and  that  to  be  a  substitute  for  a  belief  in  consecration  had  been 
the  very  purpose  of  its  inti'oduction. 

The  consequences  of  the  system  developed  themselves  in  time 
in  England,  as  they  had  done  in  those  countries  where  Calvinism 
was  formally  established.  No  sooner  did  the  dogma  of  an 
Absolute  Decree  sink,  through  its  inherent  unpojiularity,  than 
Zuiuglius  was  found  to  have  entered  through  the  door  which 
had  been  opened  by  Calvin.  We  may  see  this  by  comparing 
two  such  great  writers  as  Hooker  and  Waterland.  It  must 
not  be  forgotten,  of  course,  that  each  had  derived  the  larger 
part  of  his  opinions  from  the  teaching  of  antiquity.'  and  that, 
unlike  Calvin,  they  were  members  of  a  Church  which  retained 

*  When  these,  therefore,  or  othei  modem  writers,  are  quoted  in  the 
present  work,  the  author  does  not  intend  to  assert  that  he  agrees  with 
them  entirely :  his  agreement  with  them  is  limited  by  their  agreement 
with  the  Primitive  Church. 


T*HROUGH   THE   ELEMENTS.  31 

the  ministerial  succession,  and  the  rite  of  consecration.  It  is  to 
those  expressions,  therefore,  which  imply  them  to  have  been 
infected  by  the  influence  of  foreign  Protestantism,  that  the 
present  comparison  is  confined.  Such  statements  as  that  Our 
Lord's  Presence  is  to  be  looked  for  in  the  receiver,  and  not  in 
the  sacrament ;  and  that  the  gift  bestowed  is  bestowed  through 
the  ordinance,  and  not  through  the  elements,  are  essential  parts 
of  those  very  theories  which  were  invented  as  substitutes  for 
the  reality  of  consecration.  Now,  the  contrast  between  these 
two  writers  depends  upon  the  consideration,  that  the  one  lived 
in  the  sixteenth,  the  other  in  the  eighteenth  century ;  •  the 
first,  therefore,  while  the  doctrine  of  Absolute  Decrees  was 
still  predominant,  the  second  when  it  was  completely  abandoned. 
A¥e  should  expect,  therefore,  that  Hooker  would  take  a  far 
higher  view  of  the  gift  bestowed  in  this  sacrament  than  "Water- 
land  :  and  that  the  two  would  illustrate  the  diversity  between 
the  Calvinistic  and  Zuinglian  theories.  And  such  is  found  to 
be  the  case.  AVith  Hooker,  the  efficacy  of  the  Holy  Eucharist 
is  built  entirely  upon  its  relation  to  the  Humanity  of  Christ ; 
his  statements  respecting  Our  Loi'd's  Manhood  are  more  full 
and  weighty  than  those  of  any  of  our  writers ;  and  he  does 
ample  justice  to  its  present  effect  upon  this  sacrament.  In 
"Waterland's  time,  on  the  contrary,  belief  in  the  efficacy  of  the 
Holy  Eucharist  had  gone  down  entirely  to  the  level  of  Zuin- 
glianism.  He  thinks  it  sufficient  if  he  can  maintain  against 
the  Socinians,  that  the  inward  part  in  this  sacrament  is  the 
communication  of  some  spiritual  grace.  The  peculiar  efficacy 
of  Our  Lord's  Humanity,  and  the  signal  medium  of  its  influence 
which  is  supplied  by  the  Holy  Eucharist,  are  altogether  lost. 
He  censures  Calvin  for  having  attempted  the  vindication  of  this 
mysterious  truth ;  not  perceiving  that  it  was  this  very  circum- 
stance which  had  enabled  Calvin  to  do  some  justice  to  the 
teaching  of  Antiquity  and  to  the  declai'ations  of  Holy  Writ. 

But  we  must  now  pass  to  another  subject,  and  show  what 
positive  proofs  can  be  adduced,  that  the  gift  bestowed  in  the 
Holy  Eucharist  is  bestowed  through  the  elements. 


82 


CHAPTER  III. 

TESTIMONY    OF  THE    ANCIENT    CHURCH    TO   THE    EFFECT    OF 
CONSECEATION. 

CoNSECBATiON  has  been  affirmed  to  be  the  essential  characteristic 
of  the  Holy  Eucharist ;  and  from  this  fact  it  has  been  inferred 
that  the  gift  bestowed  in  that  ordinance  is  bestowed  through 
the  elements.  Such  is  the  statement  which  has  been  shown  to 
have  been  implied  in  Our  Lord's  words  of  Institution.  We 
have  seen  what  objections  attach  to  the  two  systems  of  Zuinglius 
and  Calvin,  by  which  this  truth  is  opposed.  AVe  must  now 
see  the  direct  evidence  which  is  borne  by  the  ancient  Church 
in  its  favour.  The  Church's  testimony  will  complete  the  proof, 
that  we  have  given  a  right  interpretation  to  the  first  of  Our 
Lord's  words  of  Institution,  that  the  subject  of  which  He  spoke 
is  such  as  has  been  represented. 

The  evidence  of  the  Ancient  Church  may  be  most  conveniently 
divided  into  three  parts. 

I.  The  ancient  Liturgies  turn  upon  three  main  points — 
Consecration,  Oblation.  Communion.  All  these  acts  make  that 
which  is  done  to  and  through  the  elements  the  prominent  con- 
sideration ;  and  contemplate  them  as  the  medium  through  which 
the  blessing  is  communicated. 

II.  There  are  distinct  statements  in  the  ancient  writers,  that 
the  elements  themselves  are  subjected  to  a  change  in  consecra- 
tion, on  which  their  efficacy  is  dependent. 

III.  The  conduct  observed  respecting  the  elements  in  the 
early  Church,  implied  them  to  be  the  medium  through  which 
a  gift  is  transmitted. 

These  subjects  must  be  taken  in  their  order. 

I.  The  Liturgies.     In  considering  this  kind  of  evidence,  it 


ANCIENT  LITURGIES  WITNESS  TO  CONSECRATION.       33 

will  be  necessary  to  inquire,  first,  what  is  the  antiquity  of  the 
ancient  Liturgies ;  secondly,  what  is  their  number ;  before  we 
come  to  the  third  question,  what  is  it  which  they  teach.  One 
preliminary  statement  however  it  is  necessary  to  make ;  that 
in  considering  the  Liturgies  we  shall  have  no  occasion  to 
examine  the  authority  of  single  expressions,  because  they  are 
here  appealed  to  as  witnesses  to  that  general  mode  of  action 
which  pervaded  the  primitive  worship,  rather  than  as  supplying 
a  dogmatic  interpretation  of  individual  statements.  The  object 
is  to  inquire  what  was  that  mode  of  consecrating  the  Eucharistic 
Elements  which  prevailed  throughout  all  parts  of  the  ancient 
Church,  from  Spain  to  the  Euphrates,  and  from  Gaul  to  Africa ; 
and  what  the  elements  themselves  were  supposed  to  acquire  by 
consecration. 

Little  attention  was  given  to  this  subject  in  the  sixteenth 
century,  because  the  Liturgies  were  supposed  to  express  nothing 
but  the  existing  opinions  of  the  Church,  and  it  was  thought 
impossible  to  discriminate  their  original  constitution  from  the 
accretions  of  later  times.  But  subsequent  inquiry,  and  the 
discovery  of  new  documents,  have  supplied  such  decisive  tests 
that  it  is  now  possible,  first,  to  show  conclusively  what  was  that 
Liturgical  Order  which  existed  during  the  Nicene  age,  and 
secondly,  to  show  by  probable  evidence  what  was  the  mode  of 
worship  in  the  generation  which  immediately  followed  the 
Apostles.  These  are  the  two  points  which  must  first  be 
demonstrated. 

Now,  by  what  means  are  we  to  ascertain  the  mode  of  worship 
which  existed  in  the  Nicene  age ;  that  is,  during  the  latter  part 
of  the  fourth  and  the  commencement  of  the  fifth  centuries? 
The  first  inquiry  must  plainly  be,  what  are  the  oldest  docu- 
ments which  exhibit  the  service  of  the  Ancient  Church.  Here 
it  must  be  admitted,  that  with  the  exception  of  some  Palim- 
psests, very  recently  made  public,  we  have  nothing  which  can 
carry  us  up  to  the  Nicene  age.  The  earliest  Liturgical  docu- 
ments previously  known,  belong  to  the  end  of  the  seventh 
century.     Such  is  the  manuscript  of  the  Liturgies  of  St.  Basil 

D 


34  ANCIENT  LITURGIES 

and  St.  Chrysostom,  formerly  in  the  Barberini '  Library  at 
Rome,  which  Montfaucon  dates  about  a.d.  691.-  Of  nearly 
equal  date  are  the  manuscripts  from  which  the  Gallic  Liturgy 
and  the  Gelasian  recension  of  the  Roman  Liturgy  were  pub- 
lished by  Thomasius ;  *  the  Leonian  Sacramentary  by  Blanchi- 
uius,  and  the  Gregorian  by  IMuratori.  These,  together  with  n 
Gallic  Sacramentary  of  about  the  same  age,  from  a  monastery 
at  Bobbio,*  which  was  printed  by  Mabillon,  have  all  been 
republished  in  the  valuable  work  of  Muratori.'' 

A  great  step,  however,  has  been  lately  made,  by  the  discovery 
of  various  Palimpsests,  which  profess  to  carry  up  our  manuscript 
authority  to  a  much  higher  period.  Bunsen  has  published  one, 
from  the  Library  of  St.  Gall,''  which  he  dates  a.d.  350,  and 
Mone  has  published  a  collection,  which  from  their  larger  number 
is  of  far  greater  value,  from  Palimpsests  at  Carlsruhe.  The 
new  writing  which  had  superseded  them,  was  itself  of  the 
beginning  of  the  eighth  century,  and  Mone  would  refer  some 
of  the  Liturgical  documents  which  preceded  them,  and  which 
a  chemical  process  has  enabled  him  to  detect,  to  the  time  of 
St.  Ireuaeus.  That  which  seems  not  improbable,  however,  from 
the  allusions  to  persecution,  and  from  other  circumstances,  is 
that  they  were  of  the  age  of  Diocletian.'' 

It   cannot   be   said,   then,   that    these    manuscripts   (for   the 

'  Proemium  to  Goar's  Euchologion.  Bunsen  has  given  a  list  of  its  con- 
tents.— llijipdhjtns  and  his  Times,  iv.  382. 

-  Palmer's  Uridines,  i.  49. 

^  "Codices  Sacramentorum  nongentis  annis  vetustiores,"  Romae,  1680. 
For  the  authenticity  of  these  documents,  vide  Valniers  Or'xj.  Liturgicx, 
i.  116,  143.  Cuvts  Hid.  Littraria,  i.  464.  Morinus,  by  whom  the  larger 
part  of  these  appear  to  have  been  first  noticed,  when  in  the  possession  of 
Petavius,  a  Senator  of  the  Parliament  of  Paris,  from  whom  they  passed  to 
Queen  Christina,  supposed  the  Codex  which  contained  the  Missale  Fran- 
corum  to  have  been  written  before  the  year  560. — I'a'iiitditiury  App. 
p.  fi'l.  The  "Missale  Vaticanum  Vetus  "  was  from  the  Vatican  Library, 
but  of  as  old  a  date  as  the  rest. — Muratori,  ii.  515. 

''  Muratori,  ii.  767. 

'  Liturgia  Romana  Vetus,  edente  L.  A.  Muratori.     Venetiis,  1748. 

''  Hippolytus  and  his  Times,  iv.  470. 

"  Messen  aus  dem  zweiten  bis  sechsten  Jahrhundert.  Von  F.  J.  Mone, 
1850,  vide  pp.  10,  55. 


WITNESS   TO   CONSECEATION.  35 

Palimpsests  are  too  recently  discovered  to  have  taken  their 
place  as  decisive  authorities)  can  carry  us  back  to  the  Nicene 
age.  They  are  important,  as  showing  demonstrably  what  kind 
of  service  was  used  a  hundred  years  before  the  time  of 
Paschasius  Radbert,  and  therefore  before  a  carnal  interpretation 
is  alleged  to  have  been  given  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Real 
Presence.  But  if  we  would  ascertain  what  was  the  mode  of 
worship  in  the  Nicene  age,  we  must  discover  what  usages 
were  employed  anterior  to  the  composition  of  the  oldest  surviv- 
ing manuscripts.  Now  this  we  are  enabled  to  do,  through  those 
divisions  which  followed  the  great  Councils  of  431  and  451. 
The  different  bodies  which  then  left  the  Catholic  Church  were  so 
completely  separated  from  the  orthodox,  that  no  intercourse  has 
since  existed  between  them.  So  that  when  there  is  an  identity 
between  the  Liturgies  which  ai'e  still  retained  by  the  Catholics 
and  those  which  these  bodies  carried  with  them  into  their 
separation,  it  will  show  what  was  that  mode  of  worship  which 
was  in  use  previous  to  the  division.  This  species  of  inquiry 
was  suggested  by  Penaudot,  and  it  enabled  him  to  fix  the  text 
of  the  two  great  Liturgies  of  St.  James  and  St.  Mark,  which 
form  a  basis  for  all  the  other  Liturgies  of  the  East. 

The  most  important  of  early  Liturgies  is  that  which  goes 
by  the  name  of  St.  James,  because  it  was  the  Liturgy  originally 
employed  in  the  Church  of  Jerusalem,  and  thence  in  other  parts 
of  the  ancient  Patriarchate  of  Antioch.  It  is  still  read  on 
the  festival  of  that  Apostle  at  "  Jerusalem,  and  in  some  of 
the  islands  of  the  Archipelago ; "  ^  and  has  been  printed  from 
various  early  manuscripts.^  Moreover,  it  is  referred  to  by  vai-ious 
writers,  who  lived  within  the  Patriarchate  of  Antioch,  in  which 
it  was  employed,  such  as  St.  Jerome,  St.  Chrysostom,  Ephrem 
Syrus,  and  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem.  The  last,  in  particular,  gives 
a  description  of  it  in  his  Mystagogical  Catechisms,  by  which 
alone  it  might  be  sufficiently  identified.  It  seems  to  have  been 
imitated  also  by  the  writer  of  the  Apostolical  Constitutions, 

^  Neale's  History  of  the  Eastern  Cliurch,  i.  318. 
^  Palmer's  Origines  Liturgicse,  i.  21. 

D  2 


86  ANCIENT   LITURGIES 

who  lived  in  that  part  of  the  world  about  the  Nicene  age, 
and  who  borrowed  what  he  called  the  Clementine  Liturgy  from 
the  usages  of  the  Church.  This  work,  however,  being  only  that 
of  a  literary  individual,  is  not  of  the  same  imjoortance '  as  any 
of  the  public  Liturgies,  sujiposing  their  form  to  be  ascertainable. 
And  we  can  determine  what  was  the  form  of  St.  James's 
Liturgy,  as  it  was  used  during  the  Nicene  age,  because  its 
basis'^  turns  out  to  be  identical  with  that  of  the  Syriac 
Liturgy,^  which  goes  by  the  same  name,  and  which  has  been 
preserved  among  the  Monophysites,  or  Syrian  Jacobites,  who 
have  held  no  kind  of  communion  with  the  Catholics  since  they 
separated  at  the  time  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  a.d.  451. 
And  this  Syriac  Liturgy  is  the  parent  of  thirty-nine  others, 
which  are  preserved  among  the  Jacobites,  and  in  wliich  its 
features  are  more  or  less  repeated.  Thus  then  we  can  determine 
what  was  used  as  the  Liturgy  of  St.  James  during  the  Nicene 
age,  because  it  is  preserved  for  us  among  the  Liturgical  offices  of 
two  parties,  whom  the  strongest  mutual  hostility  has  prevented 
from  acting  in  concert  during  fourteen  centuries. 

A  similar  mode  of  argument  enabled  Eenaudot  to  determine 
what  was  the  ancient  Liturgy  of  St.  Mark,  or  that  which  was 
employed  in  the  Church  of  Alexandria.  A  Liturgy,  purporting 
to  be  that  of  "  the  Holy  Apostle  and  Evangelist  Mark,"  and 
proved  to  be  of  Egyptian  origin,  by  the  prayers  which  it 
contains  for  the  rising  of  the  Nile,  has  been  printed  from  a 


'  Tlie  Chevalier  Bunsen  (nippoli/fiis  and  his  A{je,  vol.  iv.  p.  161) 
attaches  great  importance  to  some  Liturgical  fragiuents,  which  were  taken 
by  Liulolplius  from  an  ^-Ethiopic  version  of  the  Apostolical  Constitutions. 
But  besides  the  objections  stated  in  the  text,  it  is  to  be  observed,  first, 
that  the  ^thiopic  Church  was  not  founded  till  the  fourth  century ;  and, 
secondly,  that  the  manuscript  from  which  Ludolphus's  extracts  were 
taken  (as  lie  himself  says,  "  mendosissime  et  corruptissime ")  was  evi- 
dently of  late  date. — Vide  Ludolphi  Commentarius  ad  Hist.  JEthiopi- 
carn,  p.  304,  &c. 

'^  Vide  I'almer's  Orig.  Litur.  i.  24. 

^  The  Liturgy  of  St.  James  is  printed  in  "Neale's  Tetralogia."  The 
Syriac  Liturgy  of  St.  James  is  translated  by  Kenaudot,  ii.  29.  (Paris, 
1716.) 


WITNESS  TO   CONSECEATION.  37 

manuscript^  of  the  tenth  or  eleventh  century,  discovered  in 
a  Greek  convent  in  Calabria.  Now  this  Liturgy  is  found  to  tally 
exactly  with  that  which  is  at  present  used  at  festivals  by  the 
Egyptian  Monophysites,  and  which  Renaudot  translates  from 
the  Coptic ;  and  the  correspondence  between  them  is  found 
to  extend  even  to  those  slight  questions  of  arrangement  in 
which  different  families  of  Liturgies  differ  from  one  another. 
The  Coptic  service  indeed  bears  the  name  of  St.  Cyril,  whom 
the  Monophysites  (though  unjustly)  were  accustomed  to  claim 
as  authorizing  their  opinions ;  but  that  it  presents  the  form 
in  which  the  Alexandrian  service  was  formerly  solemnized, 
is  shown  by  its  reproduction  in  the  ^thiopic  Canon,^  and  its 
nine  derivative  Liturgies.  So  that  here  again  we  can  tell  with 
certainty  what  was  the  Liturgy  which  was  used  in  Egypt  before 
the  year  451 ;  for  the  several  parties  by  whom  the  documents 
have  been  preserved  have  been  separated,  not  only  by  religious 
antipathy,  but  by  difference  of  speech. 

These  two  Liturgies  then,  of  St.  James  and  St.  Mai-k, 
form  the  basis  of  our  inquiry,  because  their  form  can  be 
fixed  in  a  positive  manner.  The  Liturgy  of  St.  James  affords 
the  means  by  which  we  may  ascertain  the  genuineness  of 
the  ofiice  attributed  to  St.  Basil,  which  was  introduced  into 
the  Church  of  Csesarea  about  a.d.  370  or  380.  For  St.  Basil's 
Liturgy  is  a  sort  of  recension  of  that  of  St.  James,  as  the 
Liturgy  of  St.  Chrysostom  again  is  of  that  of  St.  Basil.  These 
last  are  the  two  Liturgies  at  present  used  in  the  Orthodox 
Greek  Church ;  St.  Basil's  on  his  own  feast,  and  during  the 
greater  part  of  Lent ;  St.  Chrysostom's  during  the  rest  of 
the  year.  Their  general  authenticity  is  shown,  not  only  by  their 
agreeing  in  arrangement  with  the  Liturgy  of  St.  James,  from 
which  they  are  derived,  but  from  the  relation  borne  to  them 
by  the  Armenian  Liturgy,  which  is  historically  connected  with 
that  of  St.  Basil,  and  by  the  Nestorian,  which  has  the  same 

'  Compare  Renaudot,  i.  40,  144,  &c.,  and  Palmer's  Orig.  i.  85. 
"  Renaudot,  i.  496.     Neale's  History  of  the  Eastern  Church,  i.  324. 
Palmer,  i.  97. 


38  ANCIENT   LITURGIES 

connexion  with  that  of  St.  Chrysostom,'  And  besides  these 
general  grounds  of  acceptance,  Mr.  Palmer  ^  maintains  that 
their  text  may  be  determined  by  the  ordinary  proofs  resorted  to 
in  respect  to  other  ancient  documents. 

There  are  two  main  families  of  Eastern  Liturgies  then,  that 
of  Jerusalem,  and  that  of  Alexandria,  and  it  is  known  what  was 
the  exact  form  of  each  in  the  Nicene  age.  It  is  unnecessary  to 
exj  ress  an  opinion  respecting  the  assertion  of  Neale  and 
Renaudot,  that  the  Nestorian  Liturgy  of  St.  Adseus  and 
St.  Maris  is  to  be  added  as  a  third  family,  and  as  the  ancient 
Liturgy  of  Mesopotamia.^  For  even  if  its  antiquity  should  be 
admitted,  its  fragmentary  form  would  render  it  of  little 
practical  importance.  AVe  may  turn,  therefore,  to  the  Western 
Church,  and  observe  that  we  can  determine  what  was  the 
form  of  St.  Peter's  Liturgy,  or  that  which  was  used  in  the 
Church  of  Rome  in  the  time  of  Leo  the  Great.  For  the 
Sacramentary  of  St.  Grregory  is  of  unquestioned  authority, 
and  two  earlier  recensions  of  the  same  Liturgy,  copied  from 
manuscripts  of  the  eighth  century,  are  published  by  Muratori. 
One  of  these  is  that  which  was  originally  printed  from  the 
manuscript  of  Christina,  by  Thomasius,  the  other  from  a  still 
older  manuscript  at  Verona,  by  Blanchiuius.  The  only  preceding 
Bishops  of  Rome,  to  whom  these  recensions  of  the  Liturgy 
can  with  any  plausibility  be  attributed,  are  Gelasius  and 
St.  Leo.*  So  that  here  again  we  are  led  to  the  year  451,  as 
a  date  at  which  the  Liturgical  practice  of  the  Western  Church 
also  can  be  ascertained.  And  this  is  confirmed  by  the  resem- 
blance which  exists  between  the  Leoniau  Sacramentary  and  the 
Ambrosian  Liturgy  employed  at  Milan.'     So  that  we  may  add 

'  Vide   Renaudot  Diss,   de  Lit.   Orig.  i.  34.     Neale's  History  of  the 
Eastern  Churcli,  i.  3'20. 

*  Palmer's  Origines,  i.  66,  75. 

^  Neale's  Hist,  of  tlie  Eastern  Chnrch,  i.  320,  483.     Renaudot,  ii.  568, 
599.     Mr.  Palmer  maintains  the  contrary  ;  Orig.  i.  195. 

*  Vide    Palmer's    Origines,   i.    117,   and    Muratori,  Dissert,  de    Rebus 
Liturgicis,  cap.  iii. 

^  This  is  given,  Muratori,  Lit.  Rom.  Vetus,  i.  131. 


WITNESS  TO   CONSECEATION.  39 

the  Liturgy  of  Rome  to  that  of  Alexandria  and  Jerusalem, 
as  well  as  to  those  of  St.  Basil  and  St.  Chrysostom,  as  affording 
a  positive  basis  from  which  to  reason  respecting  the  Liturgical 
usage  of  the  Church  in  the  Nicene  age. 

The  conclusions  thus  attained  supply  a  key  to  the  formularies 
of  two  other  Churches,  those  of  France  and  of  Spain  ;  respecting 
which  the  evidence,  when  viewed  in  itself,  is  less  decisive. 
We  know,  indeed,  that  the  ancient  Liturgy  of  Gaul  cannot 
be  referred  to  a  later  date  than  the  eighth  century,  because  the 
Homan  Liturgy  was  introduced  in  its  stead  in  the  time  of 
Charlemagne :  and  also  that  the  Spanish  Liturgy  was  in 
existence  as  an  independent  rite  before  the  Mahometan  invasion, 
A.D.  714.  The  last  (called  Mosarabic,  from  its  employment  while 
Spain  was  under  the  Moors)  was  originally  printed,  though  not 
in  a  very  correct  form,^  by  the  celebrated  Ximenes,  A.D.  1500. 
The  ancient  Liturgy  of  Gaul  is  preserved  under  various  forms, 
three  of  which  were  published  originally  by  Thomasius,  as  the 
Gothic,  Francic,  and  Galilean  Missals.^  These  names  indicate 
the  localities  in  which  Liturgies,  which  bear  them,  were 
severally  employed.  "  The  old  Liturgy  in  the  South  of  France 
was  called  Gothic,"  says  Mone,^  "  because  the  West  Goths 
possessed  the  country  for  a  long  time,  and  gave  it  the  name 

'  "  Lesleus  Prsef.  Miss.  Mosarab.  sec.  vii.  shows  what  portions  of  the 
Mosarabic  Liturgy  and  Missal  were  added  in  the  time  of  Ximenes,  and 
during  the  Middle  Ages." — Palmers  Orig.  Lit.  i.  172.  The  Mosarabic 
Liturgy  occurs  in  Mr.  Neale's  Tetralogia,  and  a  translation  of  it  in  his 
Introduction  to  the  History  of  the  Eastern  Church. 

^  It  is  a  peculiarity  of  the  Gallic  and  Spanish  Liturgies,  that  the  sub- 
sidiary parts  of  the  Service,  which  admit  of  variation,  are  repeated  under 
a  great  variety  of  forms,  while  those  which  are  essential,  and  therefore 
unvaried,  are  rarely  written  at  leng-th,  but  are  commonly  referred  to  by 
their  headings,  as  though  the  Priest  was  designed  to  repeat  them  from 
memory.  In  the  Missale  Gothicum,  the  Canon,  or  Order  of  Consecration, 
as  it  is  called,  nowhere  occurs  at  leng-th,  though  its  separate  jjarts  are 
referred  to  perpetually.  But  we  may  learn  what  the  whole  Canon  was 
both  from  the  Missale  Francorum,  in  which  it  occurs  (No.  xxiii.),  and  also 
from  an  account  of  the  Service  by  Germanus,  Bishop  of  Paris,  written 
probably  in  the  sixth  century  (Mabillon's  Thesaurus  Novus  Anecdotorum, 
vol.  V.  p.  90).  Both  of  them  show  the  Gallic  Liturgy  to  have  agreed  in  all 
essential  points  with  the  forms  which  prevailed  in  other  countries. 

^  Mone's  Messen,  p.  1. 


40  ANCIENT  LITURGIES 

of  Gotliia :  the  Liturgy  of  Central  Gaul  was  called  Gallic ; 
that  of  its  northern  portion  Fraucic,  because  used  in  the 
time  of  the  Francic  ascendancy.  But  all  these  are  Gallic 
Liturgies.  The  title  '  Gothic '  is  not  a  correct  one,  because  there 
is  nothing  Gothic  in  the  Liturgy ;  it  would  more  properly  be 
called  Celtic,  for  the  south  and  centre  of  Fz'ance  were  known, 
even    in    the    fifth    century,    by    the    names    of   Celtica   and 

Gallia The    Mosarabic    Liturgy,   too,    would    be    more 

correctly  designated  as  the  Spanish." 

It  is  a  ground  for  attributing  high  antiquity  both  to  the 
Spanish  and  Gothic  Liturgies,  that  they  show  no  signs  of  having 
been  either  influenced  by  the  doctrinal  ^  errors  of  the  Arian 
Goths,  nor  yet  by  those  ritual  arrangements  which  their 
coiniexion  with  Constantinople  ^  might  have  suggested.  Hence  it 
is  probable  that  these  formularies  must  have  been  of  earlier  date 
than  the  Gothic  invasion  at  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century. 
It  has  been  seen  how  much  higher  antiquity  Mone  claims  for  the 
Rituals  which  he  jDublishes.  So  much  can  be  said  \'  ith  certainty, 
that  the  early  Liturgies  of  Gaul  and  Sj^ain  may  be  discriminated 
fi'om  those  of  other  countries,  not  only  by  their  language,^  but 
by  various  most  mai'ked  peculiarities  of  arrangement ;  so  that 
their  agreement  in  fundamentals  with  other  ancient  Liturgies, 
the  date  of  which  can  be  jirecisely  fixed,  swells  the  amount 
of  their  common  authority.  For  it  contributes  to  prove  that  the 
"  original  forms  from  which  all  the  Liturgies  in  the  world  have 
been  taken,  resemble  one  another  too  much  to  have  grown 
up  independently,  and  too  little  to  have  been  copied  from  one 
another."  * 

We  have  proof,  then,  what  was  the  mode  of  worship  in  the 
Nicene  age.  Even  if  the  Palimpsests  should  not  possess  the  full 
antiquity  assigned  to  them,  yet  historical  evidence  determines 
what  was  the  Liturgy  by  which  St.  Leo  consecrated,  and  which 

'  Mone's  Messen,  p.  2. 

-  Palmer's  Uriyjines,  vol.  i.  170.     Neale's  Tetralogia,  Pr;cf.  p.  xxvii. 
■''  On  the  Provincial  Forms  of  Latin,  vide  Mone,  p.  49. 
*  See  the  excellent  paper  on  "The  Antiquity  of  the  Existinj^'  Liturgies." 
—  Tracts  fur  (lie  Tiineg,  No.  (53. 


WITNESS  TO   CONSECEATION.  41 

was  commented  upon  by  St.  Cyril.  And  the  accordance  of  the 
Fathers  of  the  Nicene  age  in  such  a  ritual  enables  us  to  ascend 
a  step  higher,  and  to  ascribe  it  with  great  probability  to  the 
Apostles  themselves,  or  to  their  immediate  successors.  For  how 
came  the  Liturgies  of  various  Churches  to  present  that  admixture 
of  vai'iety  and  accordance  by  which  they  are  characterized  ? 
How  came  the  Bishops  of  such  distant  countries,  when  they  met 
at  the  first  great  Christian  assembly  at  Nice,  to  display  such 
unanimity  in  their  modes  of  worship?  "We  know  from  history^ 
that  when  they  met  on  such  public  occasions,  their  custom  was 
to  solemnize  the  sacred  mysteries ;  yet  there  is  not  an  indication 
that  any  of  them  exjoressed  surprise  or  dissatisfaction  at  the 
usage  of  their  brethren.  This  could  hardly  have  been  the  case 
unless  their  services  had  been  derived  from  a  common  origin. 
Yet  in  whom  can  that  origin  be  found,  save  in  the  Holy  Apo- 
stles, or  in  those  their  immediate  successors,  by  whom  the  great 
Churches  of  Christendom  had  been  founded  ?  So  that  the  union 
of  accordance  and  variety  which  is  apparent  in  the  Liturgies  of 
the  Nicene  age — accordance  in  all  fundamental  features  ;  variety 
in  minor  details — enables  us  to  determine  what  \\  ere  the  general 
features  of  the  Church's  worship  in  the  age  which  immediately 
followed  the  AjDostles. 

Secondly — So  much  for  the  antiquity  of  the  ancient  Liturgies  : 
the  next  question  is  their  number.  And  this  likewise  is  a  point 
of  considerable  importance.  For  it  must  be  remembered  that 
(with  the  exception  of  a  few  baptismal  offices)  there  exist  no 
traces  of  any  other  public  formularies.  A  few  prayers  remain 
as  the  composition  of  individuals,  but  the  consecration  of  the 
Holy  Eucharist  was  the  only  thing  (so  far  as  we  know)  for  which 
the  early  Church  thought  it  necessary  to  provide  a  formal  ritual 
by  public  authority.  Hence  we  may  infer  the  great  weight  which 
it  attached  to  this  action.  And  it  is  not  immaterial  to  observe 
the  variety  of  forms  into  which  each  Liturgical  Type  speedily 
multiplied  itself — a  variety  which,  without  being  incompatible 

^  Vide  Eusebius's  account  of  the  Council  held  on  occasion  of  the  Dedi- 
cation of  a  Church  at  Jerusalem. — Life  of  Comtantine,  iv.  45. 


42  ANCIENT  LITURGIES 

with  their  common  origin,  shows  the  amount  of  thought  and 
attention  wliich  they  early  received.  For,  first,  we  have  the 
Liturgy  of  Jerusalem,  with  its  forty  derivative  Syriac  forms,  to- 
gether with  those  of  St.  Basil  and  St.  Chrysostom,  which  bear 
a  certain  relation  to  it,  and  are  themselves  illustrated  by  the 
Armenian  and  the  three  Nestorian  Liturgies.  Next,  we  have  the 
Liturgy  of  Alexandria,  the  authenticity  of  which  is  witnessed  by 
the  three  Coptic  and  the  ten  Ethiopic  Liturgies.  Then  comes 
that  of  Rome  and  its  related  Ambrosian  Liturgy.  Finally,  we 
have  the  Spanish  Liturgy  ;  and  the  Gallic,  published  in  four 
shapes  by  Muratori  and  in  another  by  ^lone.  Thus  we  have 
sixty-two  Eastern,  and  at  least  eight  "Western  Liturgies.  Indeed, 
were  the  different  forms  under  which  the  Gallic  recensions  occur 
to  be  counted  as  different  Liturgies,  the  number  of  the  whole 
would  exceed  one  hundred. 

Thirdly — Now  this  leads  to  the  third  subject  of  inquiry,  what 
is  the  conclusion  to  which  these  various  Liturgies  conduct.  For 
no  doubt  their  number  is  a  most  material  consideration  in  any 
argument  which  is  based  upon  their  consent.  It  may  be  readily 
admitted,  not  only  that  single  expressions,  but  that  important 
usages  and  [  rayers,  may  have  been  subsequently  introduced  into 
them.  Thus  we  can  refer  the  wide  employment  of  the  word 
6/ioovo-iof  to  the  first,  that  of  6(ot6kos  to  the  third  general 
Council.  In  like  manner  we  have  an  account  of  the  introduction 
of  the  Cherubic  ^  hymn  into  the  Church  of  Constantinople  in  the 
time  of  Justin.  But  it  is  not  possible,  considering  this  vast 
number  of  independent  offices,  that  the  same  expressions  should 
have  been  accidentally  introduced  into  all ;  and  still  less  that 
they  could  all  have  agreed  in  attaching  to  the  same  usages  that 
peculiar  importance  which  we  see  to  have  been  assigned  to  them. 
For  that  which  is  found  to  be  the  essential  characteristic  of  all 
ancient  Lituigies — the  very  purpose,  which  not  only  speaks  in 
their  individual  expressions,  but  gives  shape  and  consistency  to 
their  whole  arrangements — is,  that  they  represent  a  certain  trans- 
action, a  certain  course  of  events,  of  which  the  crisis  and  con- 
'  Vide  Gear's  Eucliologion,  p.  131,  and  Palmer's  Origin,  i.  21. 


WITNESS  TO   CONSECRATION.  43 

summation  is  that  which  is  done  in  respect  to  the  sacred  elements 
themselves,  with  a  view  of  giving  to  them  their  character  and 
importance. 

"VVe  have  every  variety,  therefore,  in  the  initiatory  parts  of  the 
service,  but  as  soon  as  we  come  to  the  repetition  of  the  words  of 
Institution,  we  find  the  most  striking  sameness  of  expression. 
The  multiplied  introductions  of  the  Spanish  and  Gallic  forms  fall 
back  into  the  appointed  canon  or  order,  so  soon  as  the  solemn 
words  recur,  "  who  in  the  same  night  in  which  He  suffered  "  [Qui 
pridie  quam  pateretur,  &c.].  Throughout  all  Churches  founded 
by  the  Apostles,  the  exact  repetition  of  those  words  which  Our 
Lord  had  originally  uttered  were  supposed  essential  to  the  con- 
secration of  the  Eucharist.  In  all  Liturgies,  with  the  smallest 
possible  exception,  they  are  found  to  be  identical.  This  proceeds 
upon  the  principle  which  is  explained  in  the  Liturgy  of  St. 
Chrysostom,  that  the  real  minister  in  the  consecration  of  the  Holy 
Eucharist  is  Christ  Himself  \  The  victim  is  identical  with  the 
priest.     "  Thou  art  the  thing  offered  and  the  offerer."  ^     Such  is 

'  Considering  the  general  character  of  Luther's  doctrine,  it  might  have 
been  expected  that  he  would  have  admitted  the  reality  of  consecration, 
and  probably  he  would  have  done  so,  if  to  recognize  the  priestly  com- 
mission had  not  been  its  necessary  result.  The  high  Lutheran  party, 
who  drew  up  the  Formula  Concordite  in  1580,  ordered  the  repetition  of 
Our  Lord's  words  of  consecration,  "ut  elementa  panis  et  vini  ad  hunc 
sacrum  usum  ....  sanctificentur  seu  benedicantur." — Art.  7,  p.  749. 
The  effect  of  the  omission  may  be  seen  in  the  gradual  dying  out  of  high 
views  respecting  the  Holy  Eucharist  among  the  Lutherans.  But  that 
Luther's  own  feelings  on  this  subject  harmonized  with  the  ancient  system, 
was  shovra  when  he  was  brought  into  collision  with  Zuinglius  in  the  con- 
ference at  Marburg.  "  He  did  not  teach,  he  said,  that  men  by  their  word 
could  bring  Christ's  Body  into  the  bread.  Verba  non  nostra,  sed  Christi 
sunt:  Facite,  &c.  Per  hoc  verbum  facit,  ut  manus  sacerdotis  sit  manus 
Christi.  Os  non  est  meum,  lingua  non  est  mea,  sed  Christi,  though  I  be 
knave  or  cheat." — Collin  in  Ilospiiiian,  pt.  ii.  p.  124,  as  cited  by  Ebrard, 
vol.  ii.  p.  322.  Ebrard  would  understand  the  last  words,  "ich  sey  ein 
bub  oder  schalk,"  as  though  Luther  meant  "'otherwise  I  am  a  knave." 
But  they  have  surely  a  similar  force  to  the  statement  in  our  26th  Article. 
The  consecration  is  effectual,  because  wrought  by  Christ,  though  the  mi- 
nister may  be  an  unbeliever.  Luther  repeats  the  same  statement,  Hos- 
pinian,  vol.  ii.  p.  127  :  "  Wenn  die  wort  iiber  das  Brot  gesprochen  werden, 
so  ist  der  leib  da,  wie  boss  der  sey  der  sie  spricht." 

2  "  ai)  yap  (t  6  irpoafpfpcuv  Hal  npoa(pfp6ixtvos." — Goar,  p.  72. 


44  ANCIENT  LITURGIES 

the  doctrine  which  is  written  no  less  clearly  in  the  whole  ritual, 
than  in  the  individual  expressions  of  the  ancient  writers.  For 
why  this  scrupulous  care  to  repeat  ^  the  exact  words  of  Our  Lord, 
unless  some  peculiar  effect  was  dependent  upon  the  action  V     It 

proceeds  upon  the  notion,  which  St.  Paul  authorizes,  that  the 

Holy  Eucharist  is  a  perpetuation  of  Our  Lord's  Passion,  wherein 
that  great  event,  on  which  the  salvation  of  mankind  wholly  de- 
pends, is  continually  pleaded  before  God.  "  As  often  as  ye  eat 
this  bread,  and  drink  this  cup,  ye  do  show  the  Lord's  death  till 
He  come." 

Now  this  crowning  mystery  of  the  Gospel  was  commenced  by 
Our  Lord  Himself,  when  He  gave  Himself,  as  their  spiritual 
sustenance,  to  His  Apostles.  His  words,  if  taken  literally,  imply 
that  the  oblation  which  He  had  assumed  our  nature  to  present,  . 
was  already  commenced.  "  This  is  My  Body,  which  is  given  for  ^ 
you."  "  This  cup  is  the  New  Testament  in  My  Blood,  which  is 
shed  for  you."  And  if  from  the  literal  force  of  the  words  them- 
selves we  turn  to  the  Church's  comprehension  of  them,  we  find 
that  it  afiii'med  both  that  Christ  on  that  occasion  ^  instituted  the 
Priesthood  of  Melchisedec,  and  that  He  then  bestowed  Himself 
as  the  sustenance  of  His  brethren.  "  Who  is  carried,"  says  St. 
Austin,  "  in  His  own  hands '?  Li  the  hands  of  others  a  man 
can  be  carried,  but  not  in  his  own.  How  this  could  be  under- 
stood literally  of  David  we  do  not  find  :  but  how  it  can  be  under- 
stood of  Christ  we  do  find.  For  Christ  was  carried  in  His  own 
hands,  when  commending  His  own  body  He  Siiid,  this  is  My 
Body.  For  He  bore  that  body  in  His  own  hands."  ^  The  holy 
words  of  Our  Lord  then  had  begun  that  work  which  was  to  be 
accomplished  by  the  unholy  hands  of  others.  It  was_commenced 
in  the  u|>|ii.r  eliaiulici',  but  consummated  on  the  cross.    Audthat 

'  li(-iif(',  in  llio  J'.nglish  cauon,  as  Renaudot  observes,  the  words  of  In- 
stitution are  ordered  to  be  repeated,  if  the  consecrated  elements  are  found 
not  to  be  sufficient  for  the  coinmuuicants.— DiV.ser/.  vol.  i.  p.  xiii. 

^  "Christus  ....  obtulit  hoc  idem,  quod  Melchisedech  obtulerat,  id  est 
panem  et  vinum,  suum  scilicet  corpus  et  sanguiuem."  And  he  goes  on  to 
say,  "Christum  otferre  oportebat  circa  vesperam  diei,"  &c. — Cyprian 
E},id.  03.  4,  10,  pp.  101,  1U4.     (Paris,  1060.) 

^  In  Fsalmum  x.vsiii.     Enarratio,  i.  sec.  10. 


WITNESS  TO   CONSECEATION.  45 

which  Our  Lord  began_tcL4g  hy  His  own_word3  when  He  was  » 
upon  earth,  He  still  continues  to  do,  through  the  ministry  of 
His~servants,  now  that  He  has  ascended  into  heaven.  The 
commission  given  to  His  Apostles  was  to  represent  Himself. 
This  commission  they  delivered  to  their  successors,  the  bishops 
throughout  the  world.  From  them  have  all  priests  received  like 
authority.  So  that  the  action  which  they  severally  perform  is 
not  their  own  action,  but  the  perpetuation  of  that  priesthood  of 
Melchisedec,  which  their  Great  Head  was  pleased  to  undertake. 
This  is  well  expressed  by  an  Eastern  writer  quoted  by  Renaudot : 
"  The  priest  says  the  same  words  which  Our  Lord  spoke  in  the 
Upper  Chamber  when  He  framed  that  mystery ;  that  it  might 
be  known  that  it  is  Christ  Himself  who  through  the  Father's 
will,  and  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  sanctifies  the  offering 
which  is  placed  upon  the  altar.  Christ  does  so  through  the 
agency  of  the  priest  who  pronounces  the  words.  For  not  he 
who  ministers,  but  He  who  is  invoked,  is  Himself  the  conse- 
crator."  ^ 

To  this  principle,  then,  the  ancient  Church  bore  witness,  not 
only  by  its  words,  but  still  more  by  its  actions.  The  care  with 
which  the  words  of  consecration  were  repeated,  implied  a  belief 
that  they  were  essential  to  the  validity  of  some  great  action. 
And  if  so,  it  must  have  been  this  action  itself,  and  that  with 
which  it  was  conversant,  on  which  the  value  of  the  ordinance 
depended.  Its  importance  must  have  rested,  not  merely  on  a 
consideration  of  the  Giver  or  receiver,  but  likewise  on  the  worth 
of  the  thing  received.  The  gift  conferred  in  and  through  the 
elements  themselves  must  have  been  the  thing  regarded.  No- 
thing renders  this  more  apparent  than  a  comparison  of  the 
ancient  forms  with  any  of  those  which  were  introduced  under 
the  influence  of  Zuinglius  or  Calvin.  In  the  ancient  Liturgies 
the  words  of  consecration  were  quoted  literally,  and  not  in  the 
way  of  narration :  they  were  made  part  of  a  prayer,  and  the 
people  were  enjoined  to  answer.  Amen.  But  in  the  Calvinistic 
formularies  this  prayer  is  changed  into  a  sermon ;  and  instead  of 
^  Dionysius  Barsalibi  in  Eenaudot,  vol.  ii.  p.  84. 


46  ANCIENT  LITURGIES 

a  mystical  action  addressed  to  God,  we  have  a  narration  for  the 
instruction  of  tlie  congregation.  Thus  in  the  service  employed 
in  the  Palatinate,'  after  a  discourse  on  the  subject  of  the  Holy 
Eucharist,  in  which  the  hearers  are  informed  what  Our  Lord 
said  and  did  at  tlie  Paschal  Sujiper,  the  minister  is  directed  to 
conclude,  "  From  this  institution  of  the  Holy  Supper  of  Our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  we  see  that  He  directs  our  belief  and  confi- 
dence to  His  perfect  offering  once  made  on  the  cross,"  &c. 

Here  is  an  example  of  that  which  Eljrard  affirms  to  be  true  of 
all  Protestant  formularies,  that  "  the  consecration  has  only  a  de- 
claratory, and  no  ojierative  meaning."  ^  And  the  belief  of  the 
ancient  Church,  namely,  that  the  Avords  of  consecration  were  effec- 
tive and  not  exegetical,  is  rendered  more  striking  by  the  contrast. 
They  were  not  lecited  to  the  people  for  their  information,  but 
pleaded  before  God  for  the  attainment  of  the  promise.  The 
people  were  not  to  listen  to  them  only  because  they  were  words 
of  instruction ;  but  to  say  Amen  to  them,  because  they  were 
words  of  power.  So  that  here  lies  the  wide  difference  between 
the  systems  which  we  have  been  comparing.  According  to  the 
modern  notion,  nothing  was  really  transacted  in  the  Holy 
Eucharist,  but  the  people  were  taught  what  God  might  please 
to  do  through  some  other  channel,  or  what  they  might  attain 
through  their  own  faith.  The  benefit  of  the  ordinance  was  sup- 
posed to  turn  on  considerations  drawn  either  from  the  Giver  or 
the  receiver,  not  from  the  thing  itself.  But  because  the  ancient 
Church  believed  that  a  gift  was  bestowed  in  the  Holy  Eucharist 
itself,  therefore  those  acts,  on  which  the  conseci'atiou  was  depen- 
dent, received  the  whole  weight  of  its  attention. 

It  was  stated  that  all  ancient  Liturgies,  with  the  very  smallest 
exception,  repeat  the  precise  words  of  consecration,  supposing 
that  their  exact  repetition  is  essential,  because  they  are  effective 
and  not  merely  declaratory.     Tlie  only  exception  would  seem  to 

'  This  18  taken  from  the  "  Clmr-Pfalzidie  Kirchen-Onlnung  in  anno 
IGll  puLlicirt."  Vide  Samuilung  Evaugelisch-Lutlierisch  und  Refor- 
mirter  Kirchen-Ordnuiigeu. — ZidUihm,  1738,  vol.  ii.  p.  y2b. 

^  Dogma  vom  H.  Abeudmahl,  sec.  xliv.  vol.  ii.  p.  ~i\ii. 


WITNESS   TO   CONSECKATION.  47 

be  found  in  some  copies  of  certain  Syriac  Monopliysite  Liturgies. 
It  can  hardly  be  supposed,  as  Renaudot  ^  conceives,  that  the 
omission  which  is  observable  in  these  Liturgies  has  arisen  from 
negligence,  or  because  those  well-known  words  whfch  were 
always  employed  were  repeated  from  memory,  inasmuch  as  the 
Institution  appears  to  be  really  narrated,  but  in  an  imperfect  and 
abbreviated  "  form.  Of  the  three  Liturgies  to  which  this  remark 
applies,  that  of  Xystus,  the  second  of  St.  Peter,  and  that  of 
Barsalibi,^  the  two  first  are  given  by  Kenaudot  from  other 
authorities,  in  a  more  perfect  *  form  ;  that  of  Barsalibi  ^  he  seems 
to  have  found  incurable.  But  however  singular  and  censurable 
may  be  these  deviations  from  the  usual  rule,  they  rest  upon  a 
principle  which  tends  to  coi'roborate  the  present  argument.  For 
it  can  scarcely  be  doubted  that  the  peculiarity  which  distinguishes 
these  few  (and  comparatively  modern)  Monophysite  Liturgies, 
results  from  the  great  stress  which  they  lay  on  another  part  of 
the  liturgic  office,  the  invocation  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

This  rite  is  made  so  prominent  in  the  Syrian  Liturgies,  that 
they  have  been  supposed "  to  imjoly  that  it  is  the  sole  principle 
of  consecration,  independently  of  the  repetition  of  the  words  of 
Institution.     It  will  be  shown  in  the  tenth '  chapter  that  the 

^  Eenaudot,  vol.  ii.  pp.  83,  84. 

^  This  is  the  distinction  between  tliese  Liturgies  and  that  of  St.  Adaeus 
and  St.  Maris  {Eenaudot,  ii.  593) ;  in  which  the  words  of  Institution  are 
altogether  omitted.  Renaudot  supposed  this  to  arise  from  a  defect  in  the 
ancient  manuscript  from  which  he  printed.  Mr.  Neale  refers  to  another 
manuscript  in  the  British  Museum.  {Neale  s  Hist,  of  Eastern  Church,  i. 
483.)  But  this  is  not  only  of  very  modern  date,  but  it  contains  a  mark, 
implying  that  the  words  of  consecration  should  be  supplied  verbally. 
A  more  important  jDoint  which  he  mentions,  is  that  the  INestorians  were 
charged  with  the  omission.  {Ih.  p.  485.)  Yet  if  this  omission  had  ex- 
isted anciently  in  the  Liturgy  of  St.  Adaeus,  how  could  the  words  of  In- 
stitution appear  in  the  two  later  Nestorian  Liturgies,  those  of  Theodore 
and  of  Nestorius  ?  For  the  doctrinal  peculiarities  of  the  Nestorians  would 
account  for  the  omission  of  these  words  in  the  one  case,  but  not  for  their 
insertion  in  the  other  ;  since  the  tendency  of  their  heresy  was  to  diminish 
the  reverence  felt  towards  Our  Lord's  Human  body. 

3  Renaudot,  ii.  p.  82.  *  Vol.  ii.  p.  135,  and  p.  156. 

*  Vol.  ii.  p.  450. 

•>  By  Richard  Simon,  in  his  notes  to  the  "Itinerarium  Montis  Libani." 
— Vide  Eenaudot,  vol.  ii.  p.  83. 


48  ANCIENT  LITURGIES 

invocation  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  not  incompatible  with  the 
ancient  view  of  the  importance  of  the  words  of  Institution  :  but 
it  is  sufficient  to  say  that  the  weiglit  attached  to  the  elements 
themselves,  and  consequently  the  reality  of  the  gift  which  is 
bestowed  in  them,  is  more  clearly  brought  out  by  this  part  of 
the  form  of  consecration  than  even  by  the  other.  For  the  Invo- 
cation of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  occurs  in  express  terms  in  all 
ancient  Liturgies  except  the  Roman,  particularizes  commonly  the 
elements  themselves  as  the  object  for  which  it  asks  a  blessing, 
and  in  numerous  cases  specifies  the  change  of  the  elements  as 
the  especial  blessing  solicited.  Thus,  in  the  Liturgy  of  St. 
Chrysostom  we  read,  "Send  down  Thy  Holy  Ghost  upon  us,  and 
on  these  piepared  gifts,  .  .  .  and  make  this  bread  the  precious 
Body  of  Thy  Christ,  .  .  .  and  that  which  is  in  this  cup  the  pre- 
cious Blood  of  Thy  Christ,  .  .  .  changing  them  by  Thy  Holy 
Ghost."  In  like  manner  the  Armenian  Liturgy  :  "  We  beseech 
Thee,  0  good  God,  that  Thou  wouldest  send  down  upon  us,  and 
upon  the  offering  which  is  before  us,  Thy  Holy  consubstantial 
Spirit.  Bless  this  bread,  so  as  to  make  it  the  Body  of  Our 
Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ.  Bless  that  which  is  in  this 
cup,  so  as  to  make  it  truly  the  Blood  of  Our  Lord  and  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ.  Bless  this  bread  and  wine,  so  as  to  make  them 
truly  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ,  changing  them  by  Thy  Holy  Ghost."  ^ 

The  most  ancient  of  all  Liturgies,  that  of  St.  James,  prays  in 
like  manner :  "  Send  upon  us,  and  upon  these  proposed  gifts, 
Thy  most  Holy  Ghost, . . .  that  coming  upon  them  with  His  holy, 
and  good,  and  glorious  presence,  He  may  hallow  and  may  make 
this  bread  the  holy  Body  of  Thy  Christ,  and  this  cup  the  precious 
Blood  of  Thy  Christ."  "^  Just  similar  is  the  language  of  the  Gallic 
Liturgies:  "We  pray  Thee,  0  Omnipotent  Father,  that  Thou 
wouldest  pour  the  Spirit  of  sanctification  upon  these  elements, 
placed  upon  Thy  altar,  that  by  the  transfusion  of  the  celestial 
and  invisible  sacrament,  this  bread  may  be  changed  into  flesh, 

^  Neale's  Hist,  of  Eastern  Church,  vol.  i.  p.  578. 
*  Neale,  p.  575. 


WITNESS   TO  CONSECRATION.  49 

and  this  cup  translated  into  blood,  that  it  may  be  wholly  grace, 
and  may  be  a  medicine  to  those  who  receive  it."  ^  Now  all  these 
passages  refer  to  the  elements  themselves,  as  the  especial  object 
of  the  Spirit's  influence,  and  therefore  contemplate  the  gift 
actually  bestowed  as  the  thing  of  value  in  the  transaction. 
Here,  again,  the  full  force  of  the  ancient  expressions  will  be  best 
appreciated  by  comparing  them  with  those  of  the  Calvinistic 
school.  The  following  passage  in  the  Kirclien-Ordnung  of  the 
Palatinate  appears  to  be  designed  to  correspond  with  the  prayer 
for  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  ancient  Liturgies. 

"  In  order  that  we  now,  beloved  in  the  Lord,  may  be  fed  by 
Christ  with  the  true  bread  from  heaven,  let  us  not  fix  our  hearts 
on  the  outward  bread  and  wine,  but  raise  up  our  hearts  and  faith 
above  themselves  to  the  heaven  where  Christ  Jesus  is  an  inter- 
cessor at  the  right  hand  of  His  heavenly  Father ;  there  let  us 
exhibit  for  ourselves  the  articles  of  our  Christian  faith,  and  not 
doubt  that  as  truly  as  we  receive  the  holy  bread  and  drink  in 
His  remembrance.  He  will  feed  our  souls  through  the  working 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  with  His  Body,  and  make  them  drink  of  His 
Blood."  ^ 

Here  then  we  see  the  exact  contrast  between  the  ancient  and 
modern  services.  The  first  suppose  Christ  to  descend  through 
the  agency  of  His  Spirit  upon  earth :  the  last  suppose  men  to 
ascend  through  the  action  of  their  spirits  into  heaven.  In  the 
first,  Christ  is  suj^posed  to  bestow  an  actual  gift,  which  men  may 
either  accept  or  reject,  and  which  is  equally  bestowed  upon  all. 
According  to  the  last,  no  gift  at  all  is  bestowed  through  the 
ordinance  itself;  it  is  only  an  emblem  of  the  general  good- will 
of  the  great  Spiritual  Being. 

Thus  the  Strasburg  Kirchen-Ordnung,  a.d.  1598  (p.  167), 
after  the  words  of  Institution  have  been  read  to  the  people, 
proceeds :  "  This  is  our  Hedeemer's  and  Saviour's  own  word, 
which  will  fitly  be  believed  by  us,  whom  He  has  now  thought 
worthy  and  sanctified,  so  as  to  be  able  to  come  to  Him  with 
fruit."     Here  are   both  parts   of   the    Calvinistic    system — the 

^  Mone's  Messen,  p.  21. 

^  Sammlung  Kirchen-Ordnungen,  vol,  ii.  p.  930. 

£ 


50  ANCIENT   UTIITERS 

Holy  Eucharist  is  not  supposed  to  communicate  a  gift,  but  to 
bear  witness  to  the  general  purpose  of  the  Supreme  Being : 
a  purpose  which,  according  to  Calvin,  is  founded  upon  the 
arbitrary  appointment  by  which  His  favouiites  have  previously 
been  selected.  But  the  ancient  Church  supposed  a  positive 
gift  to  be  bestowed  tlirough  the  consecrated  elements — a  gift 
by  which  all  receivers  might  profit,  though  its  benefit  would  be 
lost  by  those  who  received  it  unworthily.  It  supposed  this  gift 
to  possess  a  value  irrespective  of  the  receiver,  and  which,  there- 
fore, was  alike  to  all.  And  it  showed  its  belief  in  the  reality 
of  this  gift,  as  well  by  affirming  that  the  right  to  consecrate 
was  a  specific  trust,  committed  by  Our  Lord  to  His  appointed 
representatives,  as  by  that  solemn  ritual  which  it  was  wont  to 
employ  in  the  service  of  consecration. 

II.  So  much  respecting  the  ancient  Liturgies,  and  the  proofs 
which  they  afford  that  the  gift  bestowed  in  the  Holy  Eucharist 
is  bestowed  through  the  elements.  We  now  come  to  the  next 
head  of  arguments — the  direct  statements  of  ancient  writers,  that 
the  efficacy  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  depends  upon  the  change 
which  consecration  eff'ects  in  the  elements.  From  \\  hich  it  would 
seem  to  be  a~necessary  inference,  that^t  is  through  the  elements 
themselves  that  the  benefit  conveyed  in  this  ordinance  is  com- 
municated. 

The  language  of  ancient  writers  on  this  subject  is  less  uniformly 
explicit  seemingly  than  it  would  be,  because  their  habitual 
unwillingness  to  expose  sacred  subjects  to  the  profaneness  of 
the  heathen  restricted  the  express  mention  of  that  to  which  they 
allude.  Hence  the  continual  recurrence  of  such  expressions  as 
those  used  by  St.  Augustin  '  and  St.  Chrysostom — "  the  faithful 
will  know  what  I  mean,"  "  the  initiated  will  comprehend  what 
is  intended" — when  they  have  occasion  to  refer  to  the  Holy 
Eucharist.  Expressions  of  this  kind  are  found  in  Origen,"  whose 
Homilies  are  the  earliest  which   have  been  preserved.     There 

'  "Neaciunt  Catechumeni  quid  accipiant  Christiani." — In  Joan.  Trac. 
xi.  4. 

*  Vide  Horn,  in  Levit.  ix.  10  ;  vol.  ii.  p.  2^4,  and  xiii.  3,  p.  255. 


WITNESS   TO   CONSECRATION.  51 

were  four  writers  however  in  the  early  Church,  who  were  led 
into  further  detail,  by  the  circumstance  of  their  addressing 
Catechetical  Lectures  to  those  who  were  recently  baptized.  In 
this  case  those  grounds  for  reserve  did  not  exist  which  inter- 
fered with  the  freedom  ^  of  more  public  addresses.  In  the  Cate- 
chetical Lectures,  therefore,  of  St.  Ambrose,  St.  Cyril,  St.  Gre- 
gory Nyssen,  and  St.  Gaudentius,  we  find  express  statements  of 
the  change  which  consecration  was  supposed  to  make  in  the  Holy 
Elements.  So  forcible  are  their  expressions,  that  it  is  necessary  y/ 
to  add,  by  way  of  caution,  that  they  must  not  be  supposed  to 
have  admitted  any  carnal  presence  of  Christ,  i.  e.  any  such 
jjresence  as  that  He  could  be  an  object  to  the  senses. 

Let  us  begin  with  St.  Ambrose,  who  in  his  lectures,  "  De 
Mysteriisj"  professes  to  explain  those  things  to  the  baptized,^ 
A\  Inch  before  baptism  it  would  have  been  a  profanation  to  have 
disclosed  to  them.  Now  such  a  mode  of  speaking  is  wholly 
inconsistent  with  that  view  of  things  which  would  strip  the  Holy 
Eucharist  of  its  mystery.  It  would  have  been  strange  language 
to  have  been  adopted  needlessly  by  the  Fathers,  since  they  had 
to  justify  themselves  against  the  charge  of  Thyestian  banquets 
on  the  flesh  of  children — a  charge  which  this  reserve  on  their 
part  had  a  tendency  to  encourage.  St;_AmbrQse,  then,  after 
speaking  of  the  regenerating  force  of  Baptism,  goes  on  to  atfirm 
that  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  vouchsafed  the  real  presence  of 
Christ's  Body  and  Blood. 

"  You  may  perhaps  say,  That  which  I  see  is  something 
different :  how  do  you  prove  to  me  that  I  receive  the  Body  of 

^  The  reality  of  this  feeling  is  shown  by  the  caution  prefixed  to  St. 
Cyril's  Lectures.  "These  Catechetical  Lectures  thou  mayest  put  into 
the  hands  of  candidates  for  baptism,  and  of  baptized  believers,  but  by 
no  means  of  Catechumens,  nor  of  any  others,  who  are  not  Christians ;  as 
thou  shalt  answer  to  the  Lord." — Oxford  Traiisl.  p.  9.  Of  course  the 
full  Doctrine  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  to  be  found  in  such  works  as  the 
Homilies  which  St.  Chrysostom  addressed  to  Christians. 

-  "Nunc  de  mysteriis  dicere  tempus  admonet,  atque  ipsam  sacramen- 
torum  rationem  edere :  quam  ante  baptismum  si  putassemus  insinuandam 
nondum  initiatis,  prodidisse,  potius  quam  edidisse  sestimaremur." — lit 
Mysteriis,  i.  2. 


S2  ANCIENT   WRITERS 

Christ?  This  is  wliat  it  remains  for  me  to  prove.  "What 
examples,  therefore,  am  I  to  use  ?  Let  me  prove  that  this 
is  not  that  which  nature  has  made  it,  but  tliat  which  the 
benediction  has  consecrated  it  to  be :  and  that  the  force  of  the 
benediction  is  greater  than  that  of  nature,  because  by  the  bene- 
diction nature  herself  is  changed."  ' 

And  then,  after  citing  various  instances  from  the  Old  Testament, 
in  which  an  external  element  had  been  made  the  means  of  con- 
ferring an  inward  gift,  and  of  the  influence  exercised  by  the  one 
upon  the  other,  ending  with  the  mystery  of  the  Incarnation,  he 
concludes : 

"  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  Himself  proclaims,  this  is  My  Body. 
Before  the  sacred  words  of  benediction  another  species  is  named, 
after  consecration  the  Body  is  implied.  He  Himself  speaks  of 
His  Blood.  Before  consecration  it  is  spoken  of  as  another  thing. 
After  consecration  it  is  named  Blood.  And  you "  {i.  e.  the 
receiver)  "  say  Amen — that  is,  it  is  true.  What  3-our  mouth 
expresses,  let  your  inner  mind  confess — feel  what  you  say."  ^ 

The  Lectures  of  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  continue,  as  in  ancient 
days,  to  be  regarded  by  the  Eastern  Church  as  a  text-book  for 
the  instruction  of  the  young.  In  his  third  Mystagogical  Cate- 
chism he  says : 

"  The  bread  in  the  Eucharist,  after  the  invocation  of  the  Holy 
Grhost,  is  mere  bread  no  longer,  but  the  Body  of  Christ."  ^ 

'  De  Mysteriis,  ix.  50. 

*  "  Ante  benedictionein  verbonim  ccelestium  alia  species  nominatur, 
post  consecrationem  corpus  significatur."  "Ante  consecrationem  aliud 
dicitur,  post  consecrationem  sanguis  nuncupatur." — De  ]\li/>'lerils,  ix.  5-1. 
There  is  a  passage  in  the  "  De  .Sacranientis,"  iv.  5,  23,  which  expresses 
the  same  truth  in  still  more  concise  words.  But  it  is  not  quoted  in  the 
text,  because  though  admitted  to  be  of  great  antiquity,  it  has  been  dis- 
puted whether  this  treatise  is  by  St.  Ambro.^e :  "Antequam  conseeretur, 
panis  est:  ubi  autem  verba  C'hristi  accesserint,  corpus  est  C'hristi."  With 
this  may  be  compared  the  words  of  St.  CiL'sarius  of  Aries  ;  "  (Juando  bene- 
dicendae  verbis  ciclestibus  creatura;  sacris  altaribus  imponuntur,  antequam 
invocatione  sancti  nominis  consecrentur,  substantia  illic  est  panis  et  vini ; 
post  verba  autem  Christi  corpus  et  sanguis  Christi.  Quid  autem  niirum 
est,  si  ea,  qu;o  verbo  potuit  creare,  possit  verbo  creata  convertere?" — 
Ilovnlid  vii.  De  I'asrhate.  liih.  Pat.  viii.  p.  820. 

*  Oxford  Translation,  p.  268. 


WITNESS  TO   CONSECEATION.  53 

And  in  the  fourth  : 

"Contemplate  therefore  the  bread  and  wine  not  as  bare  elements, 
for  they  are,  according  to  the  Lord's  declaration,  the  Body  and 
Blood  of  Christ ;  for  though  sense  suggests  this  to  thee,  let  faith 
stablish  thee.  Judge  not  the  matter  from  taste,  but  from  faith 
be  fully  assured  without  misgiving,  that  thou  hast  been  vouch- 
safed the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ.  "  ^ 

Therefore  he  tells  persons  to  be 

"  Fully  persuaded,  that  what  seems  bread  is  not  bread, 
though  bread  by  taste,  but  the  body  of  Christ ;  and  that 
what  seems  wine  is  not  wine,  though  the  taste  will  have  it  so, 
but  the  Blood  of  Christ."  ^ 

St.  Gregory  Nyssen,  in  his  Catechetical  Discourse,  speaks  of  the 
Human  Body  of  Our  Lord  as  exalted  by  Personal  union  with 
Deity,  and  brings  this  forward  as  illustrative  of  the  change 
which  befalls  the  sacred  elements  : 

"  With  reason  therefore  do  we  believe  that  the  bread,  which 
is  now  sanctified  by  the  Avord  of  God,  is  transformed  into  the 
Body  of  God  the  Word.  For  that "  (natural)  "  Body  "  (of  Our 
Lord's)  "  was  in  effect  bread  "  [i.  e.  as  he  has  explained  before, 
bread  had  been  the  food  by  which  it  had  been  nourished].  "  But 
it  was  sanctified  by  the  indwelling  of  the  Word,  which  tabernacled 
in  our  flesh." 

This  process,  then,  he  compares  with  the  Holy  Eucharist : 

"  For  there  too  the  bread,  as  the  Apostle  says,  is  sanctified 
by  the  word  of  God,  and  by  prayer,  so  that  it  does  not  pass  into 
the  Body  of  the  Word  by  the  process  of  eating  and  drinking, 
but  is  transformed  at  once  into  Body  by  a  word,  as  the  Word 
expressed  it,  saying,  '  This  is  My  Body.'  '  ^ 

In  this  manner,  he  says, 

"  Humanity  is  made  partaker  of  the  Divine  Nature  through 
communion  with  Deity." 

And  he  sums  up  with  the  statement,  that  God 

"  Bestows  these  gifts,  by  changing  the  nature  of  the  apparent 

'  Oxford  Translation,  p.  271.  -  Oxford  Translation,  p.  272. 

3  8.  Greg.  Nyss.  Cat.  Orat.  39,  vol.  iii.  p.  104.  The  true  text  of  this 
passage,  as  cited  by  Theorian,  is  given,  Maio,  Nova  CoUectio,  vi.  '670. 


54  ANCIENT  USAGES 

elements  into  that "  [i.  e.  the  immortal]  "  by  the  power  of  the 
benediction." ' 

St.  Gaudentius,  Bishop  of  Brescia,  speaks  no  less  distinctly 
than  his  metropolitan,  St.  Ambrose : 

"  The  Creator  and  Lord  of  Nature,  who  produces  bread  from 
the  earth,  of  bread  again  (because  it  is  within  His  power,  and 
His  promise)  makes  His  own  body :  and  He  who  made  wine 
of  water,  of  wine  makes  His  blood."  '^ 

And  again : 

"  The  hereditaiy  gift  of  the  New  Testament,  is  that  sacrifice 
which  on  the  night  that  He  was  betrayed  to  be  crucified  He 
left  as  the  pledge  of  His  presence.  This  is  that  viaticum  for 
our  way,  by  which  we  are  nourished  in  this  journey  of  life, 
until  departing  from  this  world  we  come  to  Him  ;  by  reason 
of  which  the  same  Lord  said,  '  Unless  ye  eat  My  flesh,  and 
drink  My  blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you.'  For  He  wished  that 
His  benefits  should  continue  among  us ;  He  wished  that  through 
the  image  of  His  own  Passion  our  souls  should  be  always 
sanctified  by  His  precious  blood.  He  orders,  therefore,  His 
faithful  disciples,  whom  He  appointed  also  the  fii-st  priests 
of  His  Church,  to  solemnize  perpetually  those  mysteries  of 
eternal  life,  which  it  is  necessary  that  all  priests,  through- 
out every  Church  of  the  Avhole  world,  should  celebrate  till 
Christ  comes  again  from  heaven.  This  was  done,  that  we, 
the  priests,  and  the  whole  body  of  the  faithful,  having  the 
representation  of  Christ's  Passion  daily  before  our  eyes, 
carrying  it  in  our  hands,  and  receiving  it  in  our  mouths, 
and  bosoms,  might  be  jwssessed  with  an  indelible  memo- 
rial of  our  redemption,  and  might  obtain  a  sweet  medicine 
and  perpetual  defence  against  the  venom  of  the  devil.  As 
the  Holy  Spirit  exhorts,  '  0  taste  and  see  how  sweet  the 
Lord  is.' " ' 

III.  These  passages,  from  four  distinguished  bishops  of  the 

'  "  Tavra  S(  SiScuct  t^  t^j  (vKoyiai  Swiftd,  irpus  (Ktivo  fi(Ta(TTOi\(iwaas 
rujv  (jyatvofifvojv  ttjv  (pvaiv." — Id.  p.  105. 

*  "Ipse  naturarum  Creator  et  dominus,  qui  producit  de  temi  panem, 
de  pane  riirsus  (quia  et  potest  et  promisit),  etHcit  proprium  corpus  :  et  qui 
de  aqua  vinum  fecit,  et  de  vino  Siinguiuem  auimi." — ilaudiiitius  ad  Neo- 
phytos,  Jlih.  Pet.  Max.  v.  946. 

■'  Caudentius  ubi  supra,  p.  947. 


WITNESS  TO   CONSECKATION.  55 

fourth  century,  show  us  the  instruction  which  the  Primitive 
Church  gave  to  the  young,  when  she  brought  them  to  the 
Holy  Eucharist.  It  was  clearly  supposed  that  the  elements 
themselves  underwent  some  change,  by  virtue  of  Our  Lord's 
words,  and  of  the  power  of  the  Holy  Grhost ;  and  that  through 
the  consecration  thus  conferred  upon  them,  they  became  the 
media  of  a  certain  mysterious  benefit.  And  the  same  thing 
is  manifest,  in  the  third  place,  from  the  usages  of  the  Church. 
It  appears  to  have  been  a  custom  from  the  very  first  for  bishops 
to  send  the  consecrated  elements  to  one  another,  as  a  sign  of 
intercommunion.  This  is  mentioned  as  an  ancient  usage  by 
St.  Irenseus  ^  (in  his  letter  to  Victor),  towards  the  end  of  the 
second  century.  Here  we  see  the  same  purpose,  which 
is  explained  by  Pope  Innocent,  ^  in  the  fourth  century ;  the 
consecrated  elements,  he  says,  were  sent  from  the  Cathedral  to 
the  dependent  churches  of  the  city,  in  order  that  all  might 
feel  themselves  bound  together  in  one  communion.  But  what 
would  have  been  the  meaning  of  this,  unless  the  elements  had 
been  supposed  to  gain  some  especial  sanctity  by  consecration? 
Again,  we  know  that,  so  early  as  the  middle  of  the  second 
century,  it  was  customary  for  the  deacons  to  carry  the  con- 
secrated elements  ^  to  those  who  were  debarred  from  attending 
public  worsliip.  This  clearly  supposes  tliat  the  elements  tliem- 
selj£S__conyeyed  _some_^  especial  gift.  Neither  did  anything 
exercise  a  larger  influence  upon  the  practice  of  the  Church, 
than  the  notion  that  the  elements  were  not  only  beneficial,  if 
they  were  received  at  the  time  of  consecration,  but  that  by 
virtue  of  their  consecration  they  continued  to  be  the  medium 
of  conveying  all  those  benefits  which  were  to  be  obtained  by 
the  devout  participant.  Thus  was  there  a  means  provided, 
whereby  those  who  were  precluded  from  taking  part  in  the 
public  ritual,  might  yet  partake  in  that  communion  with  Christ 
which  it  was  appointed  to   convey.     Whether  such  a   custom 

'  Eusebius,  v.  24. 

-  Letter  to  Decentius,  sec.  v.     Harduin,  i.  997. 

^  Justin  Martyr,  Apol.  i.  sec.  Ixv.  p.  83. 


56  ANCIENT   USAGES 

was  ganctioned  by  the  Apostles  themselves,  or  whether  it  was 
only  the  result  which  the  Church  had  drawn  from  their  prin- 
ciples, it  is  clear  that  before  the  end  of  the  second  century 
it  was  usual  for  the  faithful  to  carry  home  with  them  a 
portion  of  the  sacred  elements,  the  partaking  of  which,  before 
other  food,  was  to  be  the  consecrating  principle  of  their  daily 
life.  This  custom,  subsequently  abolished,  when  altered  cir- 
cumstances rendered  it  liable  to  abuse,  is  noticed  by  Tertullian, ' 
as  universally  prevalent  in  the  second,  and  by  St.  Cyprian  '^ 
in  the  third  centuries.  Thus  were  persons  who  were  debarred 
from  joining  in  Church  offices  in  times  of  persecution,  or  who 
lived  as  hermits  in  the  wilderness,  enabled  to  partake  of  the 
daily  communion.  All  the  solitaries  in  the  desert,  St.  Basil ' 
tells  us,  were  accustomed  in  his  time  to  retain  the  consecrated 
elements  in  their  cells ;  and  the  same,  he  says,  was  the  usage  in 
Egypt,  where  the  elements,  having  been  once  consecrated  by  a 
priest,  were  afterwards  administered  to  themselves  by  the 
faithful.  In  the  next  age  we  find  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria 
speaking  in  strong  terms  of  censure  respecting  those  who 
doubted  the  permanent  sacredness  with  which  the  consecrated 
elements  were  invested.  "  I  hear  that  some  persons  say  that 
the  mystical  Eucharist  is  inefficacious,  if  a  part  of  it  be  left 
to  another  day.  They  must  be  mad  to  say  so.  For  Christ  is 
not  altered,  neither  will  His  sacred  Body  be  changed ;  but  the 
power  of  the  blessing,  and  the  life-giving  grace,  is  permanent 
in  it."  *  That  the  same  was  the  case  in  other  localities  we 
learn  from  St.  Jerome  ^,  as  well  as  from  St.  Gregory  ®  Nazianzen, 
who  describes  the  domestic  altar,  where  the  Holy  Eucharist 
was  reserved  by  his  sister  Gorgonia. 

'  "Non  sciet  maritus  quid  secreto  ante  oinnem  cibum  gustes." — Ter- 
ftilUau  ad  Urorem,  ii.  5.  Vide  also  l)e  Oratinne,  14.  Tertullian's  men- 
tion of  this  custom,  as  a  sufficient  reason  why  a  Christian  woman  should 
not  marry  a  lieathen,  shows  that  it  must  have  been  generally  practised  by 
Christian  women. 

-  S.  Cyprian  De  Lapsia,  p.  176.  ^  S.  Basil,  Ep.  93. 

'   Kpistola  ad  Cu'losyrium,  vol.  vi.  p.  30.5. 

■''  Ei)i.ttola,  30.     Ad  rammachium,  vol.  iv.  part  ii.  p.  239. 

^  Oratio  Undecima,  vol.  i.  ISO.     (Taris  1(330.) 


WITNESS   TO   CONSECRATION.  57 

This  practice  allied  itself  with  the  usage  of  retaining  the 
consecrated  elements  in  the  Church/  either  that  the  Holy- 
Eucharist  might  be  in  readiness  to  carry  to  the  sick,  or  for 
the  purpose  of  administering  it  on  the  next  occasion  to  the 
people.  The  latter  was  esj)ecially  the  case  in  Lent,  when  it 
was  not  usual,  at  least  in  the  Eastern  Church,  to  consecrate 
the  elements  on  any  days  but  Saturday  and  Sunday.  Such 
was  the  direction  given  by  the  49th  canon  of  the  Council  of 
Laodicaea,^  which  was  followed  up  by  the  order  of  the  Council 
in  Trullo,^  still  observed  in  the  Greek  Church,*  that  in  Lent 
the  "  Mass  of  the  Pre-sanctified,"  as  it  was  called,  should  be 
solemnized  excejDt  on  Saturday,  Sunday,  and  the  Feast  of  the 
Annunciation.  In  the  Church  of  E,ome,  the  two  days  pre- 
ceding Easter  Sunday  were  the  only  ones  on  which  the  Holy 
Eucharist  was  not  consecrated,  and  on  which,  therefoi-e,  it  was 
necessary  to  administer  that  which  had  been  reserved  from  a 
previous  service.  A  custom  prevailed  in  the  "West,  in  the  sixth 
century,  which  shows  another  purpose  which  the  reservation 
of  the  elements  was  designed  to  answer.  When  the  elements 
were  to  be  consecrated,  it  was  usual,  it  seems,  to  join  with  them 
a  portion  of  that  which  had  been  consecrated  on  a  previous 
day,  as  though  by  way  of  asserting  the  oneness  and  perpetuity 
of  the  oblation.  This  custom  is  noticed  in  the  description  of 
the  ancient  Gallic  Service,  by  Germanus,^  Bishop  of  Paris, 
composed  apparently  during  the  sixth  century,  as  well  as  by 
his  contemporary,  Gregory*^  of  Tours.  Both  of  them  call  the 
vessel  in  which  the  sacred  elements  were  preserved  a  "Tower : " 
a  name  for  which  Germanus  accounts,  by  supposing  that  it 
was  designed  to  represent  the  rock  in  which  Our  Lord's  Body 

'  Apost.  Const,  viii.  13. 

2  Harduin,  i.  790.  ^  j^id.  m  iqs2. 

*  The  Office  of  tlie  Pre-sanctified,  as  at  present  used  in  the  Greek 
Church,  is  given  by  Mr.  Neale,  Introduction,  p.  713. 

^  "  Expositio  Brevis  Antiques  Liturgiae  Gallicanae." — Mahillons  Tliesau- 
rus  Nvvus  Anecdotorum,  vol.  v.  95. 

^  Gregoni  Turonensis  De  Gloria  Martyrum,  i.  86.  "Accepta  turre,  iu 
qua  ministerium  Dominici  corporis  habebatur." — Bib.  Fat.  Max.  xi.  854. 


58  ANCIENT  USAGES 

was  entombed.     A  description  *  of  the  Roman  Service,  of  some- 
what similar  date,  refers  to  the  same  custom. 

All  these  circumstances  imply  that  the  elements  themselves 
were  supposed  to  gain  a  sanctity,  which  made  them  the  means 
oT~communicating  that  gift  which  was  sought  for  in  the  Holy 
Eucharist;  and  therefore  that  the  blessing  was  believed  to  be 
bound  up  with  the  thing  itself,  and  not  to  depend  merely 
upon  the  coincident  action  of  the  parties.  A  further  proof  is 
supplied  by  the  manner  in  which  Christ  was  asserted  to  com- 
municate Himself,  as  a  whole,  in  every  portion  of  the  conse- 
crated elements.  For  though  the  Holy  Eucharist  v  as  ad- 
ministered in  all  Churches  under  both  kinds,  until  the  twelfth 
century — and  the  contrary  practice  was  forbidden  by  Pope 
Gelasius,^  when  the  Manichseans,  who  thought  the  use  of  wine 
unlawful,  refused  to  partake  of  it — yet  both  kinds  were  held 
to  communicate  one  gift,  which  was  supposed  to  be  imparted 
perfectly  through  every  portion  of  either  element.^  It  is 
obvious,  then,  that  the  intervention  of  the  elements  themselves 
was  looked  to  as  the  appointed  means  of  conveying  the  blessing. 
The  ancient  notion  was  identical  with  that  which  was  laid  down 
by  the  Greek  Chuixh  at  the  Council  of  Jerusalem,  a.d.  1672: 
"  We  believe  that  in  every  portion,  even  to  the  minutest  sub- 
division, of  the  bread  and  wine  after  they  have  been  changed, 
are  contained  not  any  separate  part  of  the  Body  and  Blood 

'  ISIuratorii  Liturgia  Rouiana  Vetus,  ii.  p.  979.  (It  had  been  originally 
published  by  Mabillon.) 

^  Pope  Gelasius's  Command  is  preserved  in  the  Canon  Law.  De  Con- 
secratione  Dist.  ii.  1"2.  That  it  must  have  had  reference  to  the  case 
of  the  Manichosans  appears  from  the  explanation  given  by  Pope  Leo 
a  few  years  before.  He  complains  that  these  heretics,  "in  sacramen- 
torum  communione  ita  se  teniperant,  ut  iuterdum,  ue  penitus  latere  uon 
possint,  ore  indigno  Christi  corpus  accipiant,  sauguinem  autem  redemtionis 
nostrie  haurire  omuino  declinent,"  &c. — :Senno  sli.  De  QuadrtKji'sima,  5. 
Manichseans  are  said  by  Anastasius  to  have  been  expelled  from  Rome  in 
the  time  of  Gelasius. 

^  "For  as  St.  Paul  says,  'a  little  leaven  leaveneth  the  whole  lump,'  so 
the  very  smallest  portion  of  the  Eucharist  [vXiyiOTTj  fv\o-fia]  transfuses 
our  whole  body  into  itself,  and  fills  us  with  its  own  energy ;  and  thus 
Christ  comes  to  exist  in  us,  and  we  in  Him." — S-  Cyril  Alex,  in  Joan. 
vi.  57,  vol.  iv.  p.  365. 


WITNESS  TO   CONSECRATION.  59 

of  the  Lord ;  but  the  Body  of  Christ  is  always  whole,  and 
one  in  all  its  parts ;  and  the  Lord  Jesus  is  present  in  His 
substance,  that  is,  with  His  Soul  and  Divinity,  as  perfect  God, 
and  perfect  man."  ^ 

This  doctrine  discovers  itself  in  some  striking  expressions 
which  are  found  both  in  the  Ambrosian  and  other  ancient 
Liturgies : 

"  Singuli  accipiunt  Christum  Dominum,  et  in  singulis  portioni- 
bus  totus  est ;  nee  per  singulos  minuitur,  sed  integrum  se  prsebet 
in  singulis,"  ^ 

It  is  dwelt  upon  likewise  by  St.  Csesarius,  Bishop  of  Ailes,  in 
the  fifth  century,  in  the  course  of  a  comparison  between  the 
Holy  Eucharist  and  the  distribution  of  manna  : 

"  The  sacred  perception  of  the  Eucharist  does  not  depend  upon 
its  quantity,  but  its  ef&cacy.  This  Body,  when  the  j)riest  dis- 
tributes it,  is  as  much  in  the  smallest  portion  as  in  the  whole. 
When  the  congregation  of  the  faithful  receives  it,  as  it  is  fully 
in  all  of  them,  so  it  is  perfectly  in  each.  We  may  apj)ly  to  it 
the  Apostle's  words,  '  he  that  hath  much  shall  have  nothing 
over,  he  that  hath  little  shall  have  no  lack.'  If  we  gave  the 
hungry  bread  to  eat,  individuals  would  not  receive  that  which 
was  bestowed  upon  the  whole,  but  each  one  must  take  his  in- 
dividual portion  for  himself.  But,  when  this  bread  is  taken, 
individuals  receive  not  less  than  the  collective  body.  One 
receives  the  whole,  two  receive  it,  many  receive  it,  without  its 
being  diminished ;  because  the  blessing  of  this  sacrament  is 
susceptible  of  being  distributed,  but  it  is  not  susceptible  of  being 
exhausted  by  distribution."  ^ 

It  was  a  consequence  of  this  doctrine,  that  when  circumstances 
debarred  men  from  the  regular  reception  of  the  elements  in 
both  kinds,  they  were  yet  believed  to  receive  the  whole  blessing 
through  that  medium  which  remained  to  them.  The  mention 
of  bread  only  when  the  Holy  Eucharist  was  received  in  private 

'  This  is  translated  from  the  Russ  version. — Neales  Iiitrod.  p.  1175. 
The  Greek  is  in  Harduin,  xi.  p.  254. 

^  Muratorii  de  Rebus  Liturgicis  Dissertatio,  i.  p.  126.  Vide  Pamelius, 
Liturgicon,  vol.  i.  p.  319. 

3  Caesarii  Homilia,  vii.     Bib.  Pat.  Max.  viii.  p.  825. 


60  ANCIENT  USAGES 

houses,  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  it  was  partaken  in  that 
kind  *  alone.  The  story  of  Serapion,^  as  related  by  Eusebius, 
shows  that  this  was  supposed  sufi&cient  in  the  case  of  the  sick, 
and  from  a  circumstance  recorded  by  St.  Cyprian,^  we  learn 
that  infants  were  communicated  under  the  other  kind  only. 

There  remains  but  one  thing  further  to  notice  respecting 
the  conseci'ated  elements,  as  evincing  tlie  belief  that  they 
possessed  some  positive  sacredness ;  the  conduct,  namely,  which 
was  expected  in  their  recipients.  They  were  everywhere  re- 
ceived fasting;  and  the  custom  of  rendering  them  this  mark 
of  respect,  which  had  prevailed  at  least  as  early  as  the  second 
century,*  was  so  universal  in  the  time  of  St.  Augustin  (universa 
per  orbem  servat  Ecclesia  ^),  that  he  ascribes  it  to  A\  ostolic 
authority.  The  necessity  of  administering  the  Holy  Eucharist 
to  the  sick,  renders  it  impossible  to  observe  this  rule  where 
the  consecrated  elements  are  not  reserved,  and  hence,  perhaps, 
as  well  as  from  the  length  of  the  morning  service,  the  com- 
parative disuse  of  this  primitive  usage  among  ourselves.  Another 
pious  usage  of  an  analogous  kind,  was  to  receive  the  sacred 
elements  with  the  hands  crossed :  and  this,  likewise,  grew  to 
be  a  rule  in  the  Eastern  Chuixh.     "  !Make  thy  left  hand,"  says 

'  Such  is  the  conclusion  of  Neander,  himself  an  opponent  to  the  prac- 
tice.— Kirchcn-Gescliiclde,  vol.  ii.  part  ii.  p.  705.  (Hamburg,  1829.) 
This  appears  to  have  been  the  case  also  when  the  office  of  the  Fre-sancti- 
fied  was  celebrated.  The  Council  of  Laodicica  speaks  only  of  bread,  when 
it  directs  the  days  on  which  the  Holy  Eucharist  shall  be  ministered  of 
that  which  had  been  previously  consecrated.  (Canon  49.)  The  custom  of 
the  Greek  Church  is  to  minister  it  with  unconsecrated  wine. — Neales  In- 
troduclion  to  History  of  Greek  Church,  p.  718.  Leofric's  Missal,  in  the 
Bodleian,  directs,  in  respect  to  the  service  for  Good-Friday,  "  Feria  sexta 
.  .  .  ingrediuutur  diaconi  in  sacrario,  et  procedunt  cum  corpore  Domini 
sine  vino  consecrato,  quod  altera  die  remansit  et  ponunt  super  altare," 
&C.—F0I.  110,  Boil.  579. 

-  Eusebius,  vi.  44.  ^  S.  Cyprian  de  Lapsis,  p.  175. 

*  TertulHan  ad  Uxorem,  ii.  5.     De  Cortina,  iii.     S.  Cyprian,  Ep.  63,  16. 

*  "  riacuit  Spiritui  Sancto,  ut  in  honorem  tauti  sacramenti  in  os  Chris- 
tiani  prius  Dominioum  corpus  intraret,  quam  ceteri  cibi.  Nam  ideo  per 
universum  orbem  mos  iste  servatur." — EpMoln,  liv.  8.  The  practice  is 
recommended  by  Jeremy  Taylor,  "  Do  this  honour  to  it,  that  it  be  the 
first  food  we  eat,  and  the  first  beverage  we  drink  that  day,  unless  it  be 
in  case  of  sickness,  or  other  great  necessity." — llohj  Liiiitj. 


WITNESS  TO   CONSECEATION.  61 

St.  Cyril/  "  as  if  a  throne  for  thy  right,  which  is  on  the  eve 
of  receiving  the  King.  And  having  hollowed  thy  palm,  receive 
the  Body  of  Christ,  saying  after  it,  Amen."  This  practice  is 
referred  to  by  Damascenus,^  and  was  enjoined  by  the  101st 
canon  of  the  Council  in  Trullo.^  The  communicants  were  also 
enjoined  to  guard  lest  any  portion  of  the  consecrated  elements 
should  fall  to  the  ground.  This  is  mentioned  as  early  as  by 
Tertullian  ;  *  and  St.  Cyprian  ^  speaks  of  the  elements  which  were 
taken  home,  as  kept  with  care  in  some  closed  repository.  "  Tell 
me,"  says  St.  Cyril,  "  if  any  one  gave  thee  gold  dust,  wouldest 
thou  not  with  all  precaution  keep  it  fast,  being  on  thy  guard 
against  losing  any  of  it,  and  suffering  loss.  How  much  more 
cautiously  then  wilt  thou  observe,  that  not  a  crumb  falls  from 
thee  of  what  is  more  precious  than  gold  and  precious  stones  ! "  ® 

In  this  manner,  then,  did  the  ancient  Church  bear  witness  to 
the  fact,  that  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  the  gift  is  bestowed  through 
the  elements.  Such  is  its  commentary  on  Our  Lord's  words 
of  Institution,  wherein  He  stated  that  This,  which  He  held 
in  His  hands,  and  on  which  He  had  bestowed  His  blessing,  was 
the  medium  through  which  He  communicated  His  gift.  The 
Church  bears  witness  to  the  effects,  and  consequently  to  the 
reality  of  consecration,  both  by  its  public  offices,  by  the  voice 
of  its  doctors,  and  by  the  usages  of  its  peoj)le.  The  truth  of 
this  system  was  exhibited  in  the  last  chapter,  by  the  untenable- 
ness  of  the  two  rival  theories :  here  we  have  the  voice  of  autho- 
rity in  behalf  of  itself. 

1  S.  Cyril's  fifth  Mystagogical  Catechism,  21.     Ox.  Trans,  p.  279. 

^  De  Fide  Orthod.  iv.  13,  p.  271.  The  custom  prevailed  also  in  the 
West.  "Conjunctis  manibus  accipiebant." — S.  Awj.  c.  Epist.  Parmen. 
ii.  13.  And  as  early  as  the  second  century.  Vide  S.  Perpetua. — Ruinart, 
p.  95.  3  Harduin,  iii.  1697. 

*  "Calicis  aut  panis  etiam  nostri  aliquid  decuti  in  terram  anxie  pati- 
mur." — Tertull.  de  Corona,  iii. 

*  "Cum  qusedam  arcam  suam,  in  qua  Domini  sanctum  fuit,  manibus 
indignis  tentasset  aperire ;  igne  inde  surgente  deterrita  est,  ne  auderet 
attingere." — De  La2)sis,  p.  176.  S.  Cyprian's  statement  illustrates  those 
of  S.  Zeno  of  Verona,  I.  Trac.  14.  4.  "  Panis  cum  lig-no  datur." — 
Gallandi,  vol.  v.  128,  and  also  Trac.  5,  8,  p.  118. 

6  Fifth  Myst.  Cat.  21.     Ox.  Trans,  p.  279. 


62        ANCIENT  USAGES  WITNESS  TO  CONSECRATION. 

One  word  more  before  we  leave  this  first  portion  of  Our  Lord's 
declaration,  and  pass  from  the  Subject  to  the  Predicate,  in  His 
sentence  of  Institution. 

How  is  it  possible  that  those  who  admit  the  reality  of  con- 
secration should  deny  the  efficacy  of  the  elements  ?  For  is  it 
not  for  this  very  purpose  that  they  are  set  apart?  "With  what 
intention  can  they  be  consecrated,  except  that  they  should  be 
effectual  ?  Why  is  this  especial  portion  separated  from  the 
element  at  large,  excejit  to  be  the  medium  of  a  blessing  ?  AVhat 
other  conclusion  can  reason  dictate ;  for  why  should  they  be 
subjected  to  this  ordinance,  unless  they  are  the  recipients  of 
its  effect? 

And  as  this  conclusion  has  the  sanction  of  reason,  so  does  the 
authority  of  all  ages  witness  in  its  behalf.  In  this  particular  do 
the  Fathers  of  the  first  centuries  agree  with  the  innovators  of 
the  last.  The  former  ascribed  efficacy  to  the  elements,  because 
they  believed  the  validity  of  consecration :  the  latter  deny  it, 
because  the  validity  of  consecration  is  the  very  conclusion  from 
which  they  wish  to  escape.  Both  allow,  then,  that  consecration 
and  the  efficacy  of  the  elements  must  stand  together.  Neither  is 
it  possible  to  supjiose  that  those  who  reject  one,  can  seriously 
intend  to  uphold  the  other.  Those  who  deny  that  a  gift  is 
communicated  through  the  elements,  cannot  really  believe  the 
validity  of  consecration.  They  may  be  willing  to  retain  the 
rite,  as  a  harmless  tribute  to  ancient  usage,  but  it  is  impossible 
that  they  should  believe  in  the  reality  of  consecration,  unless 
they  believe  in  its  results.  If  they  are  content  to  retain  the 
pregnant  expressions  of  the  early  Church,  it  is  with  the  under- 
standing that  they  mean  nothing.  Yet  what  a  mockery  is  a 
Priestly  commission  which  confers  no  powei-s,  and  a  form  of 
consecration  whereby  nothing  is  made  holy  !  If  these  things 
are  real,  their  consequences  should  be  admitted :  if  unreal, 
they  had  better  be  discarded.  Legem  credendi  lex  statuat 
supplicandi.  But  if  a  certain  ritual  was  ordained  by  Christ, 
and  handed  down  by  His  Apostles,  can  it  be  indifferent 
whether  or  not  it  is  observed  ?     As  it  would  be  pi'esumptuous 


THE   GIFT   BESTOWED,  ETC.  63 

to  invent,  so  to  abandon  it  would  be  impious.  And  yet  either, 
perhaps,  were  less  heinous  guilt,  than  to  retain  holy  and  sublime 
usages,  pregnant  with  great  truths,  and  associated  with  the  love 
and  devotion  of  all  saints,  yet  to  regard  them  with  the  cold 
contempt  with  which  men  treat  the  unmeaning  and  obsolete 
fashions  of  a  barbarous  age. 


CHAPTER    IV. 

THE     GIFT     BESTOWED     IN     THE     HOLY     EUCHAKIST    IS     THE 
PEESENCE    OP   CHBIST. 

We  have  seen  what  was  the  Subject  spoken  of  in  Our  Lord's 
words  of  Institution.  He  was  referring  not  to  bread  and  wine 
at  large,  but  to  the  consecrated  elements.  "  This  is  My  Body." 
We  come  now  to  the  Predicate  in  His  discourse  ;  to  that  which  He 
afl&rmed  to  be  present.  "J/^/  Body;  My  Blood."  These  it 
was  which  He  asserted,  or  jDredicated  of  the  Subject,  in  the 
sentence  before  us.  In  the  present  chaj.ter,  then,  we  must 
inquire  what  was  meant  by  this  Predicate,  and  we  shall  thus 
be  prepared  to  pass,  in  the  last  place,  to  the  connexion  between 
it  and  the  Subject. 

Now,  it  is  obvious  that  when  Our  Lord  speaks  of  "  His 
Body,"  and  "  His  Blood,"  He  refers  to  that  which  depends  upon 
His  man's  nature.  "  God  is  a  Spirit,"  and  "  a  spirit  hath  not 
flesh  and  bones,  as  ye  see  Me  have."  If  these  things  can  be 
attributed  to  Our  Lord,  it  must  be  because  "  God  was  manifest  in 
the  flesh."  It  was  that  He  might  make  "  peace  through  the 
Blood  of  His  cross,"  and  reconcile  us  "  in  the  Body  of  His  flesh," 
that  He  vouchsafed  to  clothe  Himself  in  the  humble  garb  of 
mortality.  He  took  the  manhood  into  God.  And  by  reason  of 
this  circumstance  He  was  able  to  speak  of  Himself  as  possessing 
those  characteristics  of  man's  nature  to  which  the  words  of 
Institution  refer.     "  A  Body  hast  thou  prepared  for  Me." 


64  THE  GIFT   BESTOWED 

The  ancient  writers  are  exjiress  in  pointing  out  that  this 
reference  of  Our  Lord  to  His  Body,  and  His  Blood,  is  a  reference 
to  His  Human  nature.  "  What  is  it,"  asks  St.  Cyi'il,  which  we 
eat,  "His  Godhead,  or  His  Flesh ?"^  And  St.  Athanasius: 
"  it  was  His  Body,  through  which  He  delivered  to  us  the 
mystery,  when  He  said,  this  is  My  Body,  which  is  for  your 
sakes ;  and  this  is  the  Blood  of  the  New.  and  not  the  Old 
Covenant,  which  is  shed  for  you.  Now  Deity  has  neither  body 
nor_^lQod." " 

But  though  the  mention  of  Our  Lord's  Body  and  Blood 
implies  the  presence  of  His  man's  nature,  yet  by  virtue  of  that 
personal  union,  whereby  the  manhood  was  taken  into  God,  it 
involves  the  presence  of  His  Godhead  also.  For  since  these  two 
natures  have  been  perfectly  joined  together,  never  to  be  divided, 
in  the  Person  of  Christ,  it  follows  that  His  Godhead  must  needs 
participate  in  some  measure  in  all  acts  and  sufferings  in  which 
His  Manhood  is  concerned.  For  though  it  is  the  law  of  His 
nature,  that  His  ]\Ianhood  is  not  everywhere  present,  as  is  His 
Godhead — since  the  first  does  not  partake  in  that  attribute  of 
omnipresence  which  belongs  to  the  last — yet  His  Godhead  is 
everywhere  present  with  His  Manhood,  and  has  part  in  all  its 
actings.  AVhat soever  was  meant  therefore  by  the  giving  the 
Body  and  the  Blood  of  Christ,  as  by  the  force  of  the  terms  it 
implied  the  gift  of  His  Manhood,  so  by  virtue  of  the  Hypostatic 
Union  it  involved  that  of  His  Godhead  also.  AVhatsoever  was 
done  by  the  Man  Christ  Jesus,  was  done  by  one  who  consisted 
not  only  of  soul  and  body,  but  of  Godhead  also  :  and  that  which 
implied  the  action  of  His  lower,  imjilied  likewise  that  of  His 
higher  nature. 

When  Our  Lord,  then,  si)oke  of  His  Body  and  Blood  as 
bestowed  upon  His  disciples  in  this  sacrament,  He  must  have 
been  understood  to  imply  tliat  He  Himself,  Godhead.  Soul,  and 
Body,  was  the  gift  communicated.  His  ^Manhood  was  the 
medium    through    which    His    whole    Person    was    disjieused. 

'  S.  tVil,  Apol.  ad  Orientes,  vi.  193.     (Paris,  1638.) 
*  Apud  Theodor.  Dial.  ii. ;  vide  Albertinus,  p.  287. 


THE  PRESENCE   OF   CHRIST.  65 

"  Christ  is  in  that  sacrament,"  says  St.  Ambrose,  "  because  it  is 
the  Body  of  Christ."^  It  is  "inquired,"  says  Bishop  Taylor, 
"  whether  when  we  say  we  beheve  Christ's  Body  to  be  really  in 
the  sacrament,  we  mean  that  Body,  that  Flesh,  that  was  horn  of 
the  Virgin  Mary,  that  was  crucified,  dead,  and  buried.  I 
answer,  that  I  know  none  else  that  he  had  or  hath ;  there  is  but 
one  Body  of  Christ,  natural  and  glorified  ;  but  he  that  says  that 
Body  is  glorified  which  was  crucified,  says  it  is  the  same  Body, 
but  not  after  the  same  manner :  and  so  it  is  in  the  sacrament ; 
we  eat  and  drink  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  that  was  broken 
and  poured  forth ;  for  there  is  no  other  Body,  no  other  Blood  of 
Christ ;  but  though  it  is  the  same  which  we  eat  and  drink,  yet 
it  is  in  another  manner."  ^ 

That  such  was  the  gift  bestowed  in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  and 
that  Our  Lord's  words  of  Institution  were  to  be  taken  in  their 
simple  and  natural  sense,  was  the  belief  of  all  ancient  writers. 
"The  DocetEe  abstain  from  the  Eucharist,"  says  St.  Ignatius, 
"  because  they  do  not  confess  it  to  be  the  Flesh  of  Our  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ,  which  sufi'ered  for  our  sins,  which  the  Father 
raised  up  through  His  mercy." ^  "As  Jesus  Christ,  Our 
Saviour,  was  made  flesh  through  the  word  of  God,  and  took 
flesh  and  blood  for  our  salvation,  so  we  have  been  instructed 
that  the  food  which  has  been  consecrated  by  His  word  of 
prayer  ....  is  the  Flesh  and  Blood  of  that  Incarnate  Jesus."* 
"  Our  flesh,"  says  Tertullian,  "  is  fed  with  the  Body  and  Blood 
of  Christ,  that  our  soul,  too,  may  be  enriched  of  Ood."^  So 
that  the  statements  of  the  second  century,  tally  exactly  with  the 
language  of  those  Liturgic  Offices,  which  (as  was  shown  in  the 
last  chapter)  exhibit  to  us  the  belief  of  the  fourth.  "Deliver 
us  from  evil,  0  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  We  eat  Thy  Body, 
which  was  crucified  for  us,  and  drink  Thy  sacred  Blood, 
which  was  shed  for  us :  may  Thy  saci'ed  Body  be  made  our 
salvation ;   and  Thy  sacred  Blood  be  for  the  remission  of  our 

^  De  Mysteriis,  ix.  58. 

2  The  Real  Presence  of  Christ,  sec.  i.  11.  ^  Ad  Smyrnseos,  6. 

*  Apolog.  i.  66.  *  De  Resurrec.  8. 


66  THE   GIFT   BESTOWED 

sins,  here  and  for  evermore."^  And  these  general  declarations 
respecting  the  Holy  Eucharist  are  associated  l)y  St.  Cyprian 
with  tlie  original  act  of  Christ,  and  with  His  words  of  Institution. 
For  He  it  is  who  is  still  the  agent  in  this  work,  through  the 
intervention  of  His  ministers.  And  "  if  Jesus  Christ  Our  Lord 
and  God  is  Himself  the  High  Priest  of  God  the  Father,  and 
has  offered  Himself  first  as  a  sacrifice  to  the  Father,  and  com- 
manded this  to  be  done  in  commemoration  of  Him,  surely  that 
priest  truly  discharges  the  office  of  Christ  who  imitates  what 
Christ  did ;  and  he  then  offers  in  the  Church  a  true  and  full 
sacrifice  to  God  the  Father,  if  he  begins  to  offer  as  he  sees  that 
Christ  Himself  has  offered."^ 

That  which  Our  Lord  affirmed  to  be  present  then,  by  the 
words  of  Institution,  was  His  own  Body  and  Blood.  These 
were  the  Predicates  which  He  connected  with  those  elements  of 
bread  and  wine,  which  He  took  into  His  hands  and  blessed. 
The  nature  of  the  connexion  we  shall  consider  presently :  that 
though  real  it  Avas  not  carnal :  as  yet  we  are  concerned  with  the 
Predicates  themselves,  that  is,  with  the  Body  and  Blood  which 
He  bestowed.  "We  have  seen  that  it  was  that  self-same  Body 
and  Blood  which  He  had  taken  of  the  blessed  Virgin,  of  her 
substance ;  and  which  so  shortly  afterwards  He  offered  ujion  the 
cross.  This  it  is  which  forms  the  link  between  Him  and  man's 
nature ;  it  was  bound  by  the  unaltei-able  tie  of  personality  to 
Himself;  and  as  He  then  gave  it  Himself  to  His  twelve 
apostles,  so  He  still  communicates  it  by  the  ministration  of 
their  successors  to  the  faithful,  in  the  Holy  Eucharist. 

Now  this  truth  has  given  rise  to  two  objections.  The  words 
of  Our  Lord  are  no  doubt  express,  and  if  Scripture  is  to  be  taken 
literally,  they  admit  of  no  equivocation :  but  the  Rationalist 
objects,  first,  that  such  a  thing  is  impossible ;  and  secondly,  that 
if  not  actually  imjiossible,  it  is  yet  burthened  by  such  an 
amount  of  improbability  as  no  evidence  is  able  to  overcome. 

^  Missale  Gothicuin.  Missa  Dominicalis,  80.  Mabillon,  p.  300. 
(Paris,  1729.) 

«  S.  Cyprian,  ad  Caecil.  Ep.  63.  14. 


THE  PRESENCE   OF  CHRIST.  67 

Each  of  these  objections  requires  to  be  met ;  for  although 
nothing  short  of  its  impossibility  would  justify  men  in  departing 
from  the  natural  meaning  of  the  words  of  Revelation,  yet  strong 
antecedent  improbability  is  found  in  practice  to  present  an  equal 
obstacle  to  belief.  And  it  will  turn  out  that  the  statement  of 
Our  Lord  in  the  words  of  Institution  refers  to  a  fact  which  is 
not  only  possible,  but  which  is  in  such  perfect  analogy  with  all 
other  parts  of  the  Christian  scheme,  that  it  presents  no  greater 
difficulties  than  any  other  mystery  of  the  Gospel. 

It  is  said  then,  first,  that  it  was  impossible  that  Our  Lord 
could  impart  to  His  Disciples  that  Body  and  Blood  which 
pertained  to  Himself.  Such  was  not,  as  we  have  seen,  the 
notion  of  St.  Augustin  -j^  he  affirms,  on  the  contrary,  that  Christ 
was  carried  in  His  own  hands,  and  by  this  fact  does  he  interpret 
the  words  of  David.  And  how  can  the  possibility  of  such 
a  thing  be  denied,  considering  the  imperfect  state  of  our  know- 
ledge respecting  physical  substance  ?  How  can  we  tell  that  the 
very  nature  of  Him  whom  they  saw  before  them  might  not  in 
some  unknown  manner  be  communicated  to  the  disciples  through 
that  medium  which  their  Master  had  aj)pointed  ?  "  We  have 
no  means  of  knowing,"  says  a  writer,  who  had  no  wish  to  vindicate 
the  Primitive  Church,  "whether  the  distinction  between  the 
material  and  spiritual  world,  which  is  derived  from  our 
impressions,  has  any  objective  truth ;  and  whether  matter  and 
spirit  may  not  be  discerned  to  be  of  the  same  nature  by  higher 
intelKgences.  Hecent  discoveries  in  physics  exhibit  to  us 
changes  and  conditions  of  bodies,  such  as  the  chemical  com- 
binations of  water,  air,  and  fire,  of  acids  and  alkalies,  which 
furnish  ground  for  conjecturing  that  our  ordinary  conceptions  of 
matter  are  defective ;  and  they  tell  us  of  powers,  like  that  of 
magnetism,  about  which  it  is  uncertain  whether  they  have  any 
material  groundwork — any  substratum  by  which  they  are 
supported."^ 

If  such  are  the  thoughts  which  ought  naturally  to  suggest 

■*  Supra,  p.  44. 

^  Selbstbiograpliie  von  K.  G.  Bretsclineider,  p.  350. 

P  2 


68  THE  GIFT  BESTOWED 

thempelvcs  to  the  minds  of  men,  when  tliey  meet  with  any  fact 
which  deviates  from  the  usual  order  of  the  universe,  how  much 
more  might  such  thoughts  be  present  to  the  holy  apostles,  when 
they  considered  what  that  Body  was,  which  was  offered  to  them 
at  the  Last  Supper  ?  For  was  it  not  the  self-same  Body  which 
they  knew  to  have  walked  on  the  sea,  and  to  have  been  trans- 
figured in  the  mountain  V  Was  it  not  that  Body  which  was 
about  to  emerge  from  the  unopened  tomb,  and  to  enter,  the 
doors  being  shut,  into  their  assembly?  "Was  it  not,  in  short, 
the  Body  of  God,  which  must  needs  receive  new  qualities  from 
its  relation  to  that  Deity  with  which  it  was  personally  united  ? 
"  That  the  glorified  Body  of  Christ  can  possess  powers  and 
properties  beyond  those  which  other  bodies  are  known  to 
possess,  was  shown,"  says  Kahnis,  "  before  His  resun-ection,  by 
its  walking  on  the  sea ;  and  afterwards,  by  its  entering  through 
closed  doors."  ^  For  must  it  not  have  made  a  wide  difference  in 
the  capacities  of  that  mortal  frame  which  the  apostles  saw  before 
them,  that  as  St.  Chrysostom  says,  it  was  "the  Body  of  the 
Supreme  Grod,  the  spotless,  the  pure,  which  had  held  intercourse 
with  that  divine  nature ;  the  Body  through  which  we  are,  and 
live ;  by  which  the  gates  of  death  have  been  destroyed,  and  the 
bars  of  heaven  been  opened  ? "  ^  As  it  would  be  rash,  then, 
considei'ing  our  imperfect  knowledge  of  those  subtile  agents  by 
which  our  own  bodies  are  perpetually  affected,  to  deny  that 
there  may  be  other  modes  of  presence  than  those  which  are 
usual  and  natural,  so  still  more  would  it  have  been  presumptuous 
to  deny  such  capacities  to  the  Body  of  Christ.  "  For  His  very 
human  body  received  great  accessions  from  the  fellowship  and 
oneness  which  it  had  with  the  AVord.  For  instead  of  being 
mortal,  it  became  immortal,  and  instead  of  being  carnal,  it 
became  spiritual ;  and  whereas  it  was  born  of  the  earth,  it 
passed  through  the  gates  of  heaven." ' 

^  Lehre  vom  Abendmahle ;  von  K.  F.  A.  Kahnis,  p.  373.  (Leipzig, 
1851.) 

*  "rb  Trj  6(ia  (Keivri  <pvaei  o/JuKijaav." — In  Epist.  i.  ad  Cor.  Horn.  24, 
vol.  X.  p.  216. 

"  y.  AtUauasiu3  ad  Epictetum,  sec.  ix.  vol.  ii.  p.  908. 


THE   PEESENCE   OF   CHRIST.  69 

These  are  sufficient  reasons  for  saying  that  it  was  not  im- 
possible, that  while  Our  Lord  was  present  naturally  before  the 
eyes  of  His  disciples,  He  should  bestow  upon  them  His  Body 
and  Blood  in  some  new  and  unknown  manner,  which  was  above 
nature.  But  we  must  go  further,  and  show  that  such  a  thing 
was  not  only  possible,  but  probable;  not  merely  that  there 
was  nothing  in  it  which  their  reason  was  bound  to  reject,  but 
much  by  which  their  religious  sympathies  ought  to  have  been 
conciliated. 

We  must  suppose,  then,  that  the  Apostles  were  already 
partially  enlightened  respecting  that  truth,  which  St.  Augustin 
observes  to  be  the  great  mystery  of  the  Gospel :  "  The  Christian 
faith  depends,  properly  speaking,  upon  a  considei'ation  of  those 
two  men,  through  one  of  whom  w  e  were  sold  under  sin,  while 
we  are  redeemed  from  sin  through  the  other."  This  is  nothing 
more  than  St.  Paul  declared :  "  The  first  man  Adam  was  made 
a  living  soul ;  the  last  Adam  was  made  a  quickening  spirit." 
Hence  it  follows,  that  those  gifts,  which  have  their  native  home 
in  God,  are  bestowed  upon  man,  so  far  as  he  possesses  them, 
through  a  Mediator.  They  were  the  original  endowment  of 
man's  race,  when  he  was  created  in  God's  image,  to  be  his 
Maker's  representative  in  this  lower  world.  They  were  for- 
feited when  he  lost  this  high  commission,  till  they  were  again 
enshrined  in  the  Second  Adam,  that  more  perfect  pattern  of 
humanity,  in  whom  the  likeness  of  God  was  fully  set  forth. 
Thus  did  Christ  become  the  new  "  beginning  of  the  creation  of 
God."  All  those  treasures  which  were  needed  by  the  whole 
generation  of  His  brethren,  were  gathered  together  as  in  a 
fountain  in  His  manhood.  For  "of  His  fulness  have  all  we 
received,  and  grace  for  grace."  This  is  involved  in  the  truth 
of  Our  Lord's  Mediation,  which  not  only  implies  that  He 
condescended  to  be  a  sacrifice  and  intercessor  on  man's  behalf 
towards  God,  but  likewise  that  He  made  His  Manhood  the 
channel  through  which  the  perfections  of  the  Creator  extended 
themselves  to  the  creature.  There  is  "one  Mediator  between 
God  and   men,  the   Man  Christ  Jesus."     "Unless    the   only- 


70  THE  GIFT   BESTOWED 

begotten  had  become  such  as  we  are  (and  such  as  we  are  He 
could  not  have  betome,  save  by  being  born  in  the  flesh  of  a 
woman),  we  could  not  have  been  eni-iched  by  His  wealth." 
For,  as  St.  Paul  writes,  "the  Second  Adam  was  not  born 
from  the  earth  like  the  first,  but  out  of  heaven  appeared 
Emmanuel." ' 

That  such  is  the  manner  in  which  heavenly  gifts  have  been 
bestowed  upon  men,  is  evident  from  the  statements  of  Scripture 
resjiecting  grace.  Little,  comparatively,  is  said  of  it  in  the 
Old  Testament ;  and  that  little  is  associated  with  general  state- 
ments of  the  influence  of  the  Supi'eme  Being.  As  we  advance 
to  the  New  Testament,  we  find  that  grace  is  never  spoken  of 
in  the  Gospels,  except  as  associated  with  the  Humanity  of 
God  the  Son,  The  Apostles  "beheld  His  glory,  the  glory  as 
pf  the  only-begotten  of  the  Father,  full  of  grace  and  truth." 
As  yet  it  was  gathered  together  as  in  a  fountain,  from  w  hich 
in  after  time  it  was  to  ovei-flow  into  the  whole  body  of 
the  Church.  At  length  came  the  Day  of  Pentecost,  when  the 
Son  of  Man  had  received  gifts  for  His  brethren.  And  then 
we  read  that  the  blessing  which  had  dwelt  in  the  natui-al 
Body  of  the  Mediator  was  extended  to  His  Body  Mystical, 
and  went  down  to  the  skirts  of  its  clothing — "  great  grace  was 
upon  them  all." 

Now  hence  it  may  be  seen  why  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  so 
important,  and  how  it  is  (as  St.  Augustin  observes)  that  "  no 
one  may  say  that  the  road  of  safety  lies  in  a  good  life,  and  the 
worship  of  one  God,  without  participation  in  the  Body  and 
Blood  of  Christ."  "For  the  statement  that  God  'will  have 
all  men  to  be  saved,'  is  not  to  be  understood  as  taking  effect 
without  a  Mediator ;  and  that  Mediator  is  not  God,  ....  but 
the  Man  Christ  Jesus." '^  There  must  be  some  means,  then,  by 
which  we  must  be  put  into  relation  with  the  New  Man,  even 
as  we  have  a  natural  relation  to  the  flesh  of  the  old  one ;  we 
must  be  united  by  grace  to  Christ,  as  we  were  united  to  Adam 

'  S.  Cyril  adversus  Nestorium,  i.  1,  vol.  vi.  p.  9. 
«  Epistola  149.  17.  vol.  ii.  p.  510. 


THE  PRESENCE   OF   CHRIST.  71 

by  nature.  Neither  should  it  surprise  us  that  the  processes 
should  pi'esent  some  analogy ;  that  if  the  poison  of  the  one  is 
transmitted  through  his  flesh,  so  His  Flesh  should  be  the 
medium  through  which  is  transmitted  the  virtue  of  the  other. 
For  that  which  constitutes  our  earthly  being  is  not  only 
a  separate  personality  (however  derived,  and  in  whatever  con- 
sisting), but  likewise  that  common  nature  which  we  inherit 
from  our  original  parent.  This  nature  is  transmitted,  according 
to  the  most  mysterious  of  all  eai'thly  laws,  through  the  conti- 
nuity of  the  flesh.  It  was  not  inconsistent,  therefore,  with  the 
order  of  the  Divine  Economy,  that  Our  Lord's  Flesh  and  Blood, 
mysteriously  and  supernaturally  communicated,  should  be  the 
principle  of  a  higher  life  to  His  brethren. 

This,  then,  was  the  truth  which  Our  Lord  declared  in  the 
institution  of  the  Holy  Eucharist — a  truth  which,  whether  or 
not  fully  understood  by  His  Apostles  at  the  moment,  was 
certainly  explained  in  those  statements,  which  the  Holy  Ghost 
afterwards  recalled  to  their  memory,  as  it  was  confirmed  by  the 
practice  and  belief  of  the  Church  which  they  established. 
•'  Take,  eat,  this  is  My  Body."  "What  was  this  but  the  ex- 
planation of  that  mysterious  prediction,  "  I  am  the  living  bread, 
which  came  down  from  heaven ;  and  the  bread  which  I  will 
^ive  is  My  Flesh,  which  I  will  give  for  the  life  of  the  world  ?" 
The  Holy  Eucharist,  therefore,  is  the  carrying  out  of  that 
act  which  took  effect  in  the  Incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God. 
So  that  when  the  one  is  thought  strange,  we  shall  always  find 
that  the  other  is  imperfectly  appreciated.  It  was  by  the  In- 
carnation that  God  and  man,  the  finite  and  the  Infinite,  were 
brought  into  relation ;  and  that  the  graces  which  were  inherent 
in  the  one,  were  communicated  as  a  gift  to  the  other.  Now  the 
medium  through  which  these  gifts  are  extended  is  not  the 
Deity,  but  the  Manhood  of  Christ.  "  The  bread  which  I  will 
give  is  My  Flesh,  which  I  will  give  for  the  life  of  the  world." 

"  If  there  were  any  one,"  says  St.  Cyril,  "  who  ventured  to  say 
that  the  Word,  who  is  from  God,  was  transformed  into  a  bodily 
nature,  he  might  justly  complain  that  Our  Lord  did  not  ra'ther 


72  THE  GIFT  BESTOWED 

say,  when  He  gave  His  Body,  '  Take,  eat,  this  is  My  Godliead, 
which  is  broken  for  you,  and  this  is  not  ^ly  Blood,  but  My 
Godhead,  whicli  is  slied  for  you.'  But  since  the  AVord,  being 
God,  has  made  that  Body  His  own,  which  was  taken  from 
a  woman,  without  suffering  change  or  alteration,  how  could 
He  but  say  to  us,  and  that  truly, '  Take,  eat,  this  is  My  Body  ? ' 
For  being  life,  as  God,  He  has  made  it  life,  and  life-giving."^ 

The  ancient  writers  uniformly  asserted  the  efficacy  of  the 
Holy  Eucharist  to  depend  upon  the  fact,  that  it  was  the  means 
through  which  Our  Lord's  Humanity  was  communicated.  They 
maintained  it  to  be  the  appointed  medium  through  which  that 
re-creation  of  man's  nature,  which  began  in  Christ,  was  extended 
to  His  brethren.  Thus  did  they  understand  St.  Paul's  words, 
"  We  are  members  of  His  Body,  of  His  flesh,  and  of  His  bones." 
Hence  St.  Ignatius  calls  the  "  one  bread "  "  the  medicine  of 
immortality."  "  In  the  same  century  St.  Ireuaeus  asks :  "  How 
can  they  say  that  the  flesh  passes  into  corruption,  and  does  not 
partake  of  life,  since  it  is  fed  by  the  Body  of  the  Lord,  and  by 
His  Blood  ?  "  ^  "  For  as  a  little  leaven,  as  the  Ajiostle  says, 
leavens  the  whole  lump,  so  that  Body,  which  has  been  rendered 
immortal  by  God,  having  become  present  in  ours,  transforms 
and  changes  the  whole  of  it  to  itself."  *  St.  Augustin  tells  us 
that  it  was  the  ancient  custom  of  the  African  Christians  to  call 
the  Holy  Eucharist  by  the  name  of  life,  by  which  usage,  he  says, 
they  referred  to  Our  Lord's  declaration,  "  I  am  the  hving  bread 
which  came  down  from  heaven."  ° 

St.  Chrysostom,  in  like  manner,  says  that  Our  Lord's 
Humanity  has  been  communicated,  as  a  consecrating  principle, 
for  the  renewal  of  all  mankind.     "  He  gave  not  simply  His  own 

'  S.  Cyril  adv.  Nest.  iv.  7,  vol.  vi.  .  119. 

^  Ad  Epliesios,  20.  ^  S.  Irenaeus,  iv.  18.  5. 

■•  S.  Greg.  Nyssen.  Cat.  Orat.  37,  vol.  iii.  p.  102.  Morell  (Paris,  1638) 
reads  BavaTiaOiv,  but  the  Greek  and  the  context  require  aOavartadlv,  which 
is  found  in  the  Vatican  codex  of  Theorian  (Maio,  Nova  CoUec.  vol.  vi. 
p.  366),  as  well  as  in  three  manuscripts  of  S.  Gregory  in  the  Bodleian. 
Baroc.  27  and  108.     Cromw.  9. 

^  "Sacramentum  Corporis  Christi  nihil  aliud  quam  vitam  vocant." — 
Be  Pecc.  Mentis,  i.  34. 


THE  PRESENCE   OF   CHRIST.  73 

Body  ;  but  because  the  former  nature  of  tbe  flesh,  which  was 
framed  out  of  the  earth,  had  fii'st  become  deadened  by  sin,  and 
destitute  of  life,  He  brought  in,  as  one  may  say,  another  sort  of 
dough  and  leaven.  His  own  Flesh,  by  nature  indeed  the  same, 
but  free  from  sin,  and  full  of  life  ;  and  gave  to  all  to  partake 
thereof,  that  being  nourished  by  this,  and  laying  aside  the  old 
dead  material,  we  might  be  blended  together  unto  eternal  life, 
by  means  of  this  table."  ^  Such  was  supposed  by  the  primi- 
tive Church  to  be  the  doctrine  revealed  in  the  sixth  chapter  of 
St.  John's  Gospel ;  and  St.  Cyril,  after  quoting  ten  of  its  most 
important  verses  (verse  47  to  57),  adds  this  comment : 

"  See  then,  how  He  abides  in  us,  and  renders  us  superior  to 
corruption,  by  introducing  Himself,  as  I  said,  into  our  bodies 
through  His  own  Flesh,  which  is  real  food ;  whereas  that 
shadow,  which  was  under  the  law"  [i.e.  manna],  "and  the 
service  which  was  connected  with  it,  had  no  reality.  And  the 
principle  of  this  mystery  is  siniple  and  true,  not  curiously  de- 
vised for  the  service  of  impiety,  but  a  simple  truth.  For  we 
believe  that  the  "Word,  the  Son  of  the  Father,  having  united 
Himself  to  the  Body  born  of  the  Holy  Virgin,  with  a  reasonable 
soul  (the  union  of  course  being  ineffable  and  mystical),  rendered 
His  Body  life-giving ;  being  Himself,  as  God,  the  principle  of 
life  by  nature  ;  that  by  making  us  partakers  of  Himself,  not 
only  in  spirit,  but  in  body.  He  might  render  us  superior  to  cor- 
ruption ;  and  do  away,  through  Himself,  the  law  of  sin,  which 
was  in  our  fleshly  members,  and  thus,  as  it  is  written,  '  condemn 
sin  in  the  flesh.'  "  ^ 

Here  I  pause  to  observe  that  the  language  of  these  writers  re- 
specting the  Holy  Eucharist  accounts  for  the  diversity  which 
has  been  observed  to  exist  between  this  Sacrament  and  Holy 
Baptism.  It  was  shown  that  the  validity  of  Baptism  does  not 
depend  upon  the  consecration  of  the  elements,  or  the  character  of 
the  administrator.  These  considerations  affect  the  decency,  but 
not  the  reality,  of  the  ordinance.  For  though  Christ  is  allowed 
to  be  present  in  Baptism  by  spiritual  power,  yet  His  presence  is 

'  S.  Clirysost.  on  1  Cor.  x.  17.     Horn.  xxiv.  4. 
^  Adversus  Nestorium,  iv.  5,  vol.  vi.  p.  113. 


74  THE  GIFT  BESTOWED 

to  be  sought  in  the  ordinance  at  large,  and  not  in  the  elements. 
So  that  the  symbol  employed  is  never  spoken  of  as  gaining,  in 
itself,  any  relation  to  the  sacred  object  of  which  it  is  fitted  to  re- 
mind men.  The  washing  of  water  is  the  means  whereby  the 
baptized  partake  in  that  purification  which  was  efi'ected  by 
Christ's  blood  ;  but  the  water  is  never  spoken  of  as^  changedjnto 
blood,  either  in  Scripture  or  ancient  authors.  On  the  contrary, 
the  whole  element  of  water  is  described  as  consecrated  to  the 
mystical  washmg  away  of  sin. 

Now  the  different  rule,  which  has  been  shown  to  prevail  in  the 
case  of  the  Holy  Eucharist,  may  be  accounted  for  by  the  different 
principle  on  which  that  Sacrament  is  dependent.  In  it,  consecra- 
tion is  necessary,  and  the  services  of  the  priesthood  are  indispens- 
able. In  it,  the_elements,  and  not  the  ordinance  at  large,  are 
the  medium  of  the  gift.  And  the  reason  is,  that  Our  Lord  is 
not^present  in  this  ordinance  by  s^^iritual  power  only,  but  He 
has  consecrated  His  Body  to  be  the  peculiar  medium  of  a  super- 
natural effect.  It  has  been  set  forth  as  an  antithesis,  or  con- 
trast, to  that  of  the  old  Adam ;  and,  as  a  consequence  of  the 
Incarnation,  He  bestows  it  as  a  renewing  principle  in  the  Holy 
Eucharist,  So  that  in  Baptism  He  is  present  only  by  power 
and  grace ;  but  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  He  is  present  likewise  by 
His  Body  and  Blood.  There  is  not  only,  therefore,  that  pre- 
sence of  Godhead  which  attends  upon  His  gifts,  but  also  that 
presence  of  His  Flesh  and  Blood  which  is  bestowed  through  the 
consecrated  elements. 

"  For  as  the  Body  of  the  "Word  is  life-giving,  since  He  has 
made  it  His  own  by  a  real  union,  which  is  beyond  thought  and 
expression,  so  we,  who  are  partakers  of  His  saci'ed  Flesh  and 
Blood,  are  by  all  means  endued  with  life  ;  since  the  Word  abides 
in  us  in  the  way  of  Deity  by  tlie  Holy  Ghost,  and  in  the  way  of 
Humanity  by  His  sacred  Flesli  and  jirecious  Blood.  To  the 
truth  of  that  which  I  have  stated  the  holy  Paul  bears  witness, 
when  he  writes  to  those  \\\\o  had  believed  on  Our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  at  Corinth  ;  '  I  speak  as  to  wise  men,  judge  ye  what  I  say. 
The  cup  of  blessing,  which  we  bless,  is  it  not  the  communion  of 
the  Blood  of  Christ '?     The  breivd  which  we  break,  is  it  not  the 


THE   PRESENCE   OF   CHRIST.  75 

communion  of  the  Body  of  Christ  ?  For  we  being  many  are  one 
bread  and  one  body,  for  we  are  all  partakers  of  that  one  bread.' 
For  by  having  been  made  partakers  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  we  are 
united  to  our  common  Saviour  Christ,  and  to  one  another.  But 
one  Body  we  are  in  this  way — because  we  being  many,  are  one 
bread  and  one  body,  for  we  are  all  partakers  of  that  one 
bread." ' 

It  must  be  observed  that  several  passages,  which  have  been 
quoted  in  the  present  chapter  from  the  ancient  authors,  have 
been  employed  in  an  inverted  order ;  they  have  been  adduced 
rather  in  consequence  of  the  principle  out  of  which  they  arise, 
than  of  the  conclusion  in  which  they  terminate.  The  reason  of 
this  is  obvious  from  the  history  of  opinions.  The  leading  princi- 
ples of  the  early  Church  were  its  worship  of  the  God-man,  its 
belief  in  His  real  presence  in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  in  the 
powers  of  the  priesthood,  and  in  the  efficacy  of  consecration. 
These,  and  similar  facts,  were  built  up  into  that  intellectual  l^ 
system  of  doctrines  which  we  call  the  Creeds.  The  work  was 
one  which  it  cost  nearly  five  centuries  to  complete,  and  its  last 
act  was  to  guard  agaihst  those  two  opposing  heresies  of  Nestorius 
and  Eutyches,  by  which  Our  Lord's  Incarnation  was  dii'ectly 
attacked.  Hence  it  became  necessary  for  the  defendei^s  of  the 
faith  to  direct  their  especial  attention  to  this  doctrine ;  to  show 
the  relation  which  Our  Lord's  Manhood  bore  to  His  divine 
nature,  and  that  He  had  vouchsafed  to  make  it  the  very  instru- 
ment of  that  great  work  which  He  is  pleased  to  effect  in  the 
Holy  Eucharist.  This  was  the  line  of  argument  adopted  by 
St.  Cyril ;  and  in  consequence,  he  was  led  to  dwell  upon  the 
relation  between  the  Holy  Euchai'ist  and  the  doctrine  of  the  Incar- 
nation more  fully  than  any  other  Father.  The  best  answer  to  the 
Nestorians,  who  denied  that  Our  Lord's  Body  was  the  Body  of 
God,  was  the  admitted  fact  that  it  was  the  principle  of  life  as 
bestowed  in  the  Holy  Eucharist.  And  St.  Cyril's  arguments  on 
this  subject  were  so  completely  built  uj)on  the  practice  of  the 
four  preceding  centuries,  and  were  so  heartily  adopted  by  the 

^  S.  Cyril  adv.  Nestorium,  iv.  5,  vol.  vi.  p.  111. 


76  THE  GIFT  BESTOWED 

Church  in  lier  most  numerous  Councils,  that  to  reject  them 
would  be  to  tcake  up  arms  agamst  all  Catholic  antiquity. 

Now,  it  is  obvious  that  the  Church's  usages  may  be  justified 
by  the  doctrine  to  which  they  lead,  just  as  the  doctrine  was 
formerly  jiroved  from  the  usages  out  of  which  it  originated.  The 
doctrine  of  Our  Lord's  Incarnation,  now  that  it  has  taken  its 
place  in  the  dogmatic  formularies  of  the  Church,  may  be  adduced 
in  illustration  of  the  fact,  that  it  is  His  Body,  through  which  He 
bestows  His  blessings.  If  this  doctrine  was  formerly  proved  by 
men's  belief  in  the  efficacy  of  the  Holy  Eucharist,  it  may  now  be 
adduced  with  equal  justice  as  a  reason  for  supposing  this  sacra- 
ment to  be  efficacious.  And  thus  it  meets  the  real  difficulty  by 
which  men's  belief  is  obstructed.  The  strong  antipathy  which 
our  reason  entertains  against  the  notion  of  an  unnecessary 
miracle,  vanishes  so  soon  as  we  see  that  the  agency  introduced 
only  occupies  its  natural  place  in  that  chain  of  causes,  by  which 
the  acts  of  God  above  are  linked  to  those  of  His  earthly  servants. 
No  theist  feels  repugnance  at  admitting  a  spiritual  influence  of 
God  upon  the  minds  of  His  creatures,  because  the  mind  of  man 
appears  to  be  an  instrument  which  is  naturally  adai:)ted  for  the 
reception  and  perpetuation  of  intellectual  and  spiritual  impulses. 
The  knowledge,  therefore,  that  we  possess  this  door,  whereby 
we  can  hold  intercourse  with  spiritual  beings,  inclines  men  to 
allow  the  reality  of  their  influence.  And  in  like  manner,  when 
it  is  discovered  that  Our  Lord's  Humanity  is  the  appointed 
channel  througli  which  we  participate  in  heavenly  blessings,  and 
that  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  the  medium  through  which  it  is  im- 
parted. His  real  presence  in  that  ordinance  is  discovered  to  have 
its  fitting  place  in  God's  dealings  towards  mankind. 

The  remarks  of  Erasmus,^  when  the  subject  came  into  con- 
ti'oversy  in  the  sixteenth  century,  sliow  that  the  want  of  this 
perception   has  given  rise  to  the  apj^arent  improbability  with 

'  "Mibi  non  displiceret  CEcolampailii  sententia,  nisi  obstaret  consen- 
sus ecclesije.  Nee  enim  video  quid  agat  corpus  iuseusibile,  nee  utilitatem 
allaturuui,  si  sentiretur,  modo  adsit  iu  symbolis  gratia  spiritualis.  Et 
tamen  ab  Ecolesiic  consensu  non  possum  discedere,  uec  unquam  discessi." — 
Eravindg  Bilihaldo,  June  G,  A.U.  152(),  Lib.  30.  Ep.  44. 


THE  PEESENCE  OF  CHRIST.  77 

which  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  has  been  supposed  to 
be  chargeable.  Erasmus  could  discern  no  use  which  was  to 
follow  from  the  presence  of  Our  Lord's  Body,  which  he  supposed 
to  be  merely  a  portion  of  inoperative  matter.  Unless  he  had 
been  withheld,  therefoi'e,  by  the  tradition  of  the  Church,  he 
would  have  adopted  the  Zuinglian  theory  (as  advocated  by 
(Ecolampadius),  that  nothing  was  to  be  looked  for  in  this  sacra- 
ment but  the  ordinary  operations  of  God's  Spirit.  The  same 
feeling  is  expressed  by  Johnson,  in  his  learned  work  on  the  Un- 
bloody Sacrifice.  He  tells  us,  that  except  with  a  view  to  its 
sacrificial  use,  he  is  "  very  much  at  a  loss,  why  Our  Saviour 
should  make  the  eating  His  Body  and  drinking  His  Blood  so 
important  a  duty."  ^  And  therefore,  instead  of  supposing  that 
the  Gospel  was  the  centi-al  point  in  the  world's  history,  and  that 
the  great  events  which  it  unfolded  were  the  real  relations  between 
God  and  man,  he  assigns  the  same  origin  to  the  Holy  Eucharist 
as  Tillotson  did  both  to  the  Priesthood  and  to  the  system  of 
expiatory  sacrifice,  and  supposes  it  to  be  merely  a  compliance 
with  the  prejudices  of  men.  He  thinks  that  the  Holy  Eucharist 
was  to  be  eaten,  "  because  it  was  the  universal  practice  of  the 
ancient  people  to  feast  on  those  things  which  they  had  first 
offered  in  sacrifice."  ^ 

Now  all  such  objections  vanish,  when  it  is  shown  that  Our 
Lord's  real  Presence  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  a  natural  sequel 
to  the  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation  ;  that  it  immediately  connects 
itself  with  those  truths  which  are  revealed  to  us  respecting  God, 
Chi'ist,  and  mankind  ;  and  that  it  supplies  the  medium,  through 
which  the  merciful  actions  of  the  Mediator  are  brought  home  to 
His  creatures.  But  it  has  been  proved  that  these  facts  are  wit- 
nessed both  by  the  testimony  of  Scripture,  and  by  the  belief  of 
the  Church.  Otherwise,  why  should  St.  Cyprian  have  thought 
it  necessary  to  admit  men  to  the  Holy  Eucharist  in  a  season  of 
persecution,  "  that  we  may  not  leave  those  unarmed  whom  we 
encourage  to  the  conflict ;  but  may  fortify  them  by  the  protection 

^  Unbloody  Sacrifice,  vol.  i.  p.  264.     (Anglo-Catholic  Library.) 
-  Idem,  vol.  ii.  p.  5. 


78  THE  GIFT  BESTOWED,  ETC. 

of  Christ's  Body .  and  Blood  ?  " '  How  could  St.  Cyril  have 
adduced  it  as  a  decisive  proof  of  the  erroneous  teaching  of 
Nestorious,  that  he  was  ignorant  "  that  the  thing  set  forth  on 
the  hallowed  tables  of  the  Church  is  not  the  nature  of  Deity,  but 
the  very  Body  of  the  Word,  who  was  born  from  the  Father  ?  "  ^ 
Why  should  St.  Leo  have  considered  that  it  was  a  sufficient 
answer  to  the  partizans  of  Eutyches,  that  it  was  so  notorious,  "  as 
to  be  witnessed  by  the  very  tongues  of  children,  that  m  the 
sacrament  of  the  Holy  Communion  there  is  the  truth  of  Christ's 
Body  and  Blood  ?  "  ^  These  statements  proceed  upon  the  sup- 
position which  St.  Cyril  has  explained  more  at  length  in  his 
Commentary  upon  St.  John. 

"  That  we  are  united  to  Christ  by  a  perfect  love,  a  right  foith, 
and  a  sound  reason,  I  am  far,"  he  says,  "  from  denying.  All  this 
is  clear  enough.  But  to  venture  to  affirm  that  there  is  no  rela- 
tion between  our  flesh  and  His,  may  be  shown  to  be  wholly  dis- 
sonant from  the  Scriptures.  For  how  can  it  be  disputed,  how 
can  auj  right-minded  man  doubt,  that  in  this  relation  Christ  is 
the  vine,  and  we  the  branches,  who  receive  life  from  Him  into 
ourselves  ?  For  St.  Paul  says,  '  we  are  all  one  body  in  Christ, 
because  we  being  many  are  one  bread,  for  we  are  all  i:)ai-takers  of 
that  one  bread.'  For  let  any  man  explain  to  us  the  cause,  and 
go  on  to  teach  us  what  is  the  efficacy  of  the  mystical  Eucharist. 
Why  is  it  that  we  receive  it  ?  Does  it  not  cause  Christ  to  dwell 
in  us  even  bodily,  by  the  partaking  and  communion  with  His 
sacred  Flesh  '?  No  doubt  of  it.  For  St.  Paul  writes,  that  '  the 
Gentiles  had  become  of  one  body  and  partakers  and  fellow-heirs 
with  Christ.'  Now  in  what  way  wore  they  set  foi-th  as  one  body  ? 
Because  thej^  were  thought  worthy  to  be  partakers  of  the  mys- 
tical Eucharist,  they  became  one  body  with  Him,  even  as  did 
each  one  of  the  Holy  Apostles."  * 

Let  the  doctrine,  tlien,  of  Our  Lord's  Incarnation  be  ad- 
mitted, and  there  will  be  no  imjirobability  in  the  idea  that 
His  sacred  Body  should  be  the  medium  through  which  He 
communicates   those    gifts   which    have    their   origin    in    His 

^  Epis.  liv.  ad  Comelium.  -  Adv.  Nest.  iv.  6,  vol.  vi.  p.  116. 

3  S.  Leo,  Ep.  46,  ii.  p.  260.     (Lyons,  1700.) 
*  In  Joan,  xv.  1,  Lib.  x.  2,  vqI.  iv.  p.  862. 


KELATION  BETWEEN  THE  GIFT  AND  THE  ELEMENTS.  79 

Godhead.  That  such  a  thing  is  not  impossible,  has  been  shown 
ah'eady,  both  from  our  ignorance  of  the  operation  of  natural 
agents,  and  because  the  body  which  is  communicated  is  the 
Body  of  God.  Add  the  further  thought,  that  this  Body  is 
the  appointed  instrument  by  which  the  New  Adam  counteracts 
those  effects,  which  the  old  Adam  produced  upon  the  race  of 
man,  and  its  intervention  will  be  shown  to  be  neither  un- 
meaning nor  paradoxical.  So  that  there  was  no  reason  why 
its  operations  should  be  deemed  improbable  by  the  Apostles, 
to  whom  it  was  originally  given,  nor  yet  by  the  Church  in 
which  it  has  been  since  bestowed.  For  that  which  Our  Lord 
did  in  person  at  His  last  Supper,  He  has  done  ever  since  by 
the  medium  of  His  ministers.  Through  them  does  He  still 
bestow  that  gift  of  His  Body  and  His  Blood,  which  He  gave 
to  His  twelve  Apostles.  He  still  speaks  the  words  of  Insti- 
tution, and  thereby  affirms  the  presence  of  Himself,  of  His 
Body,  Soul,  and  Godhead.  Neither  is  His  Body  any  other 
than  that  Human  Body,  which,  by  the  mystery  of  the  Incar- 
nation, He  made  His  own  ;  that  Body  which  was  once  humbled, 
but  now  is  exalted,  the  self-same  Body  which  He  took  of  the 
Virgin,  and  which  suffered  on  the  Cross. 


CHAPTER  V. 


THE    BELATION    BETWEEN    THE    GIFT   BESTOWED    IN    THE    HOLY 
EUCHARIST   AND   THE    ELEMENTS. 

"We  come  now  to  the  third  question  which  arises  out  of  the 
words  of  Institution — the  connexion,  namely,  between  the 
Subject  and  Predicate.  "What  was  meant  by  Our  Lord,  when 
He  said,  "  This  is  My  Body  ?  " 

There    are   two    main   interpretations   which   the   copula   is 
might  receive.     It   might   express   representation,  or  it  might 


80  THE  RELATION  BETWEEN 

express  identity.  These  are  the  two  relations  which  the 
Predicate,  in  such  a  case,  might  bear  to  the  Subject ;  and  the 
same  Copula  might  be  employed,  whichever  relation  were 
intended,  "  This  is  Pompey,"  was  said  to  Csesar  when  his 
rival's  head  was  offered  to  him  at  Alexandria :  and  he  might 
have  used  the  same  words  himself  with  equal  propriety  re- 
specting the  statue,  at  the  feet  of  which  he  fell,  in  the 
Senate-house.  In  the  first  case,  however,  there  was  the 
identical  person ;  in  the  last  there  was  only  a  representation. 
Now,  it  is  difficult  to  understand  how  the  Holy  Eucharist 
can  depend  upon  the  principle  of  representation,  because  why 
should  bread  and  wine  represent  Our  Lord's  Body  and  Blood, 
except  there  were  some  real  connexion  between  them  ?  The 
elements  have  no  natural  likeness  to  flesh  and  blood,  nor,  unless 
the  sacramental  principle  be  admitted,  have  they  any  especial 
I  fitness  to  represent  such  objects.  Except  it  had  pleased  God, 
therefore,  to  produce  that  real  relation  which  is  expressed  by 
identity,  there  is  no  basis  on  wliich  to  rest  the  principle  of 
representation. 

But  again,  it  must  be  observed  that  the  force  of  the  word 
is,  as  expressing  representation,  is  derived  from  two  sources ; 
for  one  thing  may  represent  another,  either  on  account  of  their 
natural  resemblance,  or  because  the  first  is  authorized  and  in- 
tended to  represent  the  second.  An  ancient  statue  would  be 
called  by  the  name  of  Caesar  or  Pompey,  either  because  it  was 
supposed  to  present  their  well-known  lineaments,  or  because 
the  sculptor  had  inscribed  it  with  their  names.  So  that  we 
get  two  principles  on  which  a  thing  may  be  said  to  represent 
another,  either  that  of  likeness,  which  derives  its  force  from  the 
judgment  of  the  sjiectator,  or  that  of  authority,  which  depends 
upon  the  intention  of  the  authoi".  A  picture  represents  a  man, 
because  it  is  like  him :  but  a  bank  note  represents,  or  is,  five  or 
ten  pounds,  because  it  contains  the  undertaking  of  some  responsible 
party  that  he  will  pay  so  many  pounds  upon  its  delivery. 

Thus,  then,  we  have  three  senses  in  which  the  expression 
"This  is"  might  be  employed.     Eirst,  it  may  imply  identity; 


THE  GIFT   AND   THE   ELEMENTS.  81 

secondly,  it  may  imply  that  kind  of  representation  which  derives  [ 
its  force  merely  from  the  effect  produced  upon  the  spectator 
or  receiver ;  thirdly,  it  may  imply  that  kind  of  representation 
which  is  dependent  only  upon  the  intention  of  the  author  or  } 
giver.  Now,  when  we  proceed  to  apply  this  to  the  case  before 
us,  and  ask  which  of  these  three  relations  was  intended  by  Our 
Lord  when  He  said,  "  This  is  My  Body"  we  are  met  at  once 
by  the  fact  that  these  are  the  three  alternatives,  which  we  have 
already  had  before  us  in  the  second  chapter  (p.  23),  as  the 
theories,  respectively,  of  the  ancient  Church,  of  Zuinglius,  and 
Calvin.  The  principle  of  identity  is  coincident  with  that  of  the 
ancient  Church,  which  supposed  that  the  Holy  Eucharist  de- 
rived its  value  from  the  reality  of  the  gift  bestowed :  that 
principle  of  representation  which  depends  upon  the  opinion  of 
the  spectator,  is  plainly  the  theory  of  Zuinglius,  who  maintained 
that  the  Holy  Eucharist  derived  its  efficacy  solely  from  the 
disposition  of  the  receiver :  lastly,  that  principle  of  representa- 
tion which  depends  upon  the  intention  of  the  author,  agrees 
exactly  with  the  system  of  Calvin,  by  whom  the  decree  of 
Almighty  God  was  affirmed  to  be  its  sole  consecrating 
principle. 

Two,  then,  of  the  systems  under  consideration  have  already 
been  dismissed  as  partial  and  unsatisfactory ;  that  of  Zuinglius, 
as  incompatible  with  the  first  instincts  of  Christian  piety ;  that 
of  Calvin,  as  involving  the  monstrous  theory  of  an  arbitrary 
fate.  They  are  partial,  because  implied  in  the  system  of  the 
ancient  Church ;  they  are  unsatisfactory,  because  untenable  in 
themselves.  And,  therefore,  though  both  will  be  further  noticed 
in  the  sequel,  and  shown  neither  to  accord  with  Holy  Scripture, 
nor  with  the  teaching  of  the  ancient  Church,  yet  we  may  leave 
them  for  the  present,  and  turn  to  that  principle  of  identity 
which  alone  remains  to  claim  our  attention. 

When  it  is  said,  therefore,  "This  is  My  Body,"  the  word 
is  expresses  the  identity  of  the  Subject  and  Predicate.  For 
there  is  nothing  else  which  it  could  express,  except  that 
principle    of  representation,   which    would    lead    us    to    those 

G 


^  THE  RELATION  BETWEEN 

theories  of  Zuinglius  and  Calvin  which  we  have  discarded. 
But  identity  is  of  various  kinds,  and  what  is  the  nature  of 
the  identity  here  intended  ?  It  is  something  distinct  from  that 
personal  identity  which  is  unaffected  hy  the  pei'petual  change 
which  takes  place  in  the  materials  of  the  body.  Still  less  is  it 
a  common  case  of  physical  identity,  as  when  we  handle  portions 
of  the  visible  creation,  and  say  "  this  is  iron,"  or  "  this  is  earth," 
For  this  sacrament,  as  was  shown  in  the  second  chapter  (p.  14), 
is  to  be  dealt  with  as  being  wholly  a  moral,  and  not  a  physical 
instrument.  This  is  no  detraction  from  the  truth  of  Our  Lord's 
Presence,  nor  from  the  reality  of  that  identity  which  is  aflSirmed 
by  the  words  of  consecration ;  it  implies  only  that  Christ's 
Presence  is  not  bestowed  according  to  the  ordinary  laws  of 
the  material  creation,  but  is  specific  and  supernatural.  Wherein, 
then,  does  the  identity  consist?  It  is  plainly  a  peculiar  prin- 
ciple— sui  generis;  which,  being  without  parallel  in  the  world 
around,  is  entitled  to  a  specific  appellation.  For  it  depends 
upon  that  mystex'ious  law  of  consecration,  of  which  we  have 
no  other  example ;  and  by  virtue  of  this  act,  the  Subject  and 
Predicate  make  up  together  a  real,  but  heterogeneous  whole. 
And  therefore  the  ancient  writers  speak  of  the  union  as  mystical 
or  secret,  because  its  nature  and  laws  are  entirely  hidden  from 
investigation.  So  that  since  the  relation  between  the  Subject 
and  Predicate  in  Our  Lord's  words  of  Institution  cannot  be 
resolved  into  any  more  general  idea,  it  can  derive  its  name 
only  from  itself,  and  tlie  union  can  be  described  as  nothing  else 
than  a  sacramental  identity. 

Such  is  the  result  of  that  principle  of  consecration,  which 
has  been  shown  to  be  characteristic  of  the  Holy  Eucharist. 
Hence  it  comes  to  pass  that  this  sacrament  consists  of  two 
things,  a  Subject  and  a  Predicate,  which  are  united  into  one 
by  a  law  of  identity  which  is  without  parallel.  So  the  matter 
is  stated  in  our  Catechism :  the  Holy  Eucharist  consists,  not 
only  of  an  "  outward  part  or  sign,"  but  also  of  an  "  inward  part 
or  thing  signified."  This  agrees  with  the  definition  of  Peter 
Lombard,  "  invisibilis  gratise  visibilis  causa."     And  the  same 


iflE  GIFT  AND  THE   ELEMENTS.  88 

idea  may  be  traced  up  to  the  first  followers  of  the  Apostles. 
We  find  it  in  St.  Irenaeus,  who  says  that  the  consecrated  element 
"  is  no  longer  common  bread,  but  Eucharist,  consisting  of  two 
parts,  an  earthly  and  a  heavenly."  ^  St.  Basil  applies  the  same 
principle  to  Baptism,  though  here  it  is  the  ordinance  at  large, 
not  that  which  is  administered  in  it,  which  consists  of  two 
parts.  One  of  these  he  describes  to  be  immersion  in  water, 
the  other  the  presence  of  the  Spirit ;  ^  in  exact  accordance  with 
St.  Paul's  words,  that  this  sacrament  consists  of  "  the  washing 
of  regeneration,  and  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

But  the  writer  who  suggested  that  phraseology,  which  has 
continued  to  be  prevalent,  at  least  in  Western  Christendom, 
was  St.  Augustin.  By  sacraments,  he  says,  are  meant,  in 
general,  those  signs  which  are  used  with  a  sacred  purpose.^ 
But  when  he  proceeds  to  define  them  more  exactly,  he  says 
that  a  sacrament  consists  of  two  parts,  one  of  which  is  an 
object  to  the  senses,  the  other  to  the  mind.  The  first,  there- 
fore, has  a  visible  and  corporeal  nature ;  the  second  is  that 
spiritual  gift  which  it  is  the  object  of  the  ordinance  to  convey.* 
This  is  illustrated  by  the  language  of  an  early  Eastern  writer, 
quoted  by  Photius  :  "  The  Body  of  Christ,  which  is  received  by 
the  faithful,  undergoes  no  alteration,  so  far  as  it  is  an  object 
to  the  senses,  and  yet  can  never  be  detached  from  that  inward 
gift,  which  is  an  object  to  the  mind."  ^  The  writer  of  these 
words  belonged  to  a  school  hereafter  to  be  noticed,  the  object 
of  which  was  to  oppose  the  Eutychians ;  his  design,  therefore, 
is  to  illustrate  the  co-existence  of  two  natures  in  Christ,  by 
reference  to  the  existence  of  an  outward  and  inward  part  in 
the  Holy  Eucharist.  So  that  he  is  led  to  observe  that  "  the 
tangible  and  intangible,  the  visible  and  invisible,"  though 
entirely  distinct  in  character,  are  yet  joined  together  in  this 
sacrament. 

The  thing  received  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  being  admitted, 

^  S.  Irenseus,  iv.  18.  5.  ^  De  Spiritu  Sancto,  xv.  35,  p.  29. 

^  Epist.  cxxxviii.  7,  vol.  ii.  p.  412.  *  Sermo  271,  vol.  v.  p.  1104. 

*  Ephraim,  Patriarcli  of  Theopolis  {i.e.  Antioch),  in  Photius,  No.  229.  . 

G  2 


84  THE  RELATION   BETWEEN 

then,  to  consist  of  two  parts,  different  in  character,  yet  united 
the  one  to  the  other ;  the  one  an  object  to  the  senses,  the  other 
made  known  to  us  only  hy  revelation  and  faith ;  St.  Augustin 
proceeded  to  assign  names  respectively  to  each.  The  outward 
part  he  called  " sacramentum,"  the  inward  part  "  res  sacramenti" 
or  "virtus  sacramenti."  The  last  two  expressions,  which  he 
used  somewhat  vaguely,^  were  more  accurately  discriminated 
by  later  writers ;  they  appropriated  the  words  res  sacramenti, 
or  thing  signified,  to  the  inward  part,  while  they  reserved  the 
expression,  virtus  sacramenti,  for  "  the  benefits,  whereof  we  are 
partakers  thereby."  Such  was  the  course  taken  by  Bishop 
Overall,  conformably  to  the  more  exact  phraseology  of  the 
schoolmen,  when  he  compiled  our  Catechism. 

"When  it  is  said,  then,  that  the  relation  between  the  Subject 
and  the  Predicate  in  Our  Lord's  words  of  Institution  is  that 
of  sacramental  identity,  it  is  meant  that  the  outward  and  inward 
parts,  the  sacramentum  and  res  sacramenti,  are  united  by  the 
act  of  consecration  into  a  compound  whole. '^  The  two  therefore 
are  so  imited,  that  they  must  needs  go  together ;  and  whoso 
receives  the  one,  receives  the  other.  So  long  as  we  remain  in 
the  region  of  the  senses,  and  take  account  only  of  that  which 
is  visible  to  the  outward  world,  the  sacramentum  is  all  which 
we  know  of;  but  judge  of  the  matter  by  faith  and  revelation, 
and  we  are  sure  that  the  res  sacramenti  is  present  also.  Such 
was  the  efl&cacy  of  Our  Lord's  original  benediction ;  such  con- 
tinues to  be  the  force  of  the  same  words,  when  pronounced  by 
Him  through  the  mouth  of  His  ministers.    For  they  are  creative 

^  "Aliud  est  sacramentum,  aliud  res  sacramenti." — In  Joan.  Tract, 
xxvi.  11.  "Hujus  rei  sacramentum  ....  quibusdam  ad  vitam,  quibus- 
dam  ad  exitium :  res  vero  ipsa,  cujus  sacramentum  est,  omni  homini  ad 
vitam,  nuUi  ad  exitium." — hi.  xxvi.  15.  Here  he  probably  uses  res  sacra- 
menti for  virtus  sacramenti ;  for  that  his  belief  was  that  the  inward  part, 
or  Body  of  Christ,  is  received  by  all  communicants,  is  obvious  from  other 
passages.  Vide  Epis.  cxl.  66  ;  l)e  Baptismo  contra  Don.  v.  9  ;  Sermo  bm. 
17  ;  In  Joan,  xxvii.  11. 

^  Hence  we  have  an  answer  to  the  question,  ^^^lat  does  the  word  Hoc 
express  in  Our  Lord's  words  of  Institution?  It  refers  directly  to  the  res 
sacramenti,  indirectly  to  the  sacramentum  also. 


THE  GIFT   AND  THE   ELEMENTS.  85 

words ;  like  those  which  called  the  world  into  existence :  they  / 
effect  that  which  they  declare. 

Since  the  principle,  then,  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  that  two 
dissimilar  things,  the  outward  and  the  inward,  retaining  each 
their  own  character,  are  united  into  a  heterogeneous  whole,  it 
follows  that  the  complete  idea  of  this  sacrament  implies,  not 
only  the  maintenance  of  the  two  portions  of  which  this  whale 
is  composed,  but  the  law  of  their  combination. 

Hence  there  will  be  four  errors  against  which  it  is  necessary 
to  guard.  Since  that  which  is  participated  in  the  Holy  Eu- 
charist consists  of  an  outward  part  and  an  inward  part,  and 
since  these  two  must  be  duly  joined  together,  the  nature  of 
a  sacrament  would  be  overthrown  if  either  the  one  part  or  the 
other  were  omitted :  or  if  the  two  were  either  unduly  confused, 
or  unduly  separated.  And  these  will  be  found,  in  fact,  to  be 
the  characteristic  circumstances  in  the  four  erroneous  systems 
which  have  prevailed  respecting  the  Holy  Eucharist.  Since 
it  consists  both  of  a  sacramentum  and  a  res  sacramenti,  it  must 
be  fatal  to  it  to  omit  either  the  one  or  the  other.  Yet  such  was 
the  error  of  the  Capernaites  on  the  one  side,  and  of  Zuinglius 
on  the  other.  The  sacramentum  had  no  place  in  their  thoughts, 
nor  the  res  sacramenti  in  his.  Again,  since  the  Holy  Eucharist 
implies  that  these  parts,  though  continuing  distinct,  are  mys- 
tically joined  together,  it  must  be  equally  fatal  to  its  nature 
either  to  confuse  or  dissociate  them.  But  the  first  was  done 
by  Luther,  the  last  by  Calvin.  Let  us  review  these  several 
systems,  and  we  shall  thus  gain  a  clearer  apprehension  of  the 
nature  of  that  sacramental  identity  which  binds  the  sacra- 
mentum, to  the  res  sacramenti  ;  the  consecrated  elements,  that 
is,  to  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ. 

First — To  omit  the  res  sacramenti,  or  thing  communicated,  is 
plainly  the  greatest  possible  misconception  of  the  Holy  Eu- 
charist. For  it  destroys  the  very  purpose  for  which  this  ordinance 
was  appointed,  and  renders  it  an  unmeaning  and  useless  for- 
mality. So  that  it  would  be  more  reasonable  to  explain  away 
the  command  to  celebrate   the   Eucharist,  than  to  retain  the 


80  THE  RELATION  BETWEEN 

ordinance  but  destroy  its  significance.  Such,  however,  was  the 
course  adopted  by  Zuiiiglius,  and  openly  advocated  in  this 
country  by  Hoadley.  It  may  be  fitly  described  as  the  notion 
of  a  Symbolical  *  Presence,  since  it  represented  the  elements 
to  be  nothing  but  a  sign  or  symbol  of  the  presence  of  Christ. 
It  had  its  origin,  as  we  have  seen,  in  a  desire  to  dispense  with 
the  necessity  of  consecration,  and  with  the  authority  of  the 
Priesthood.  Its  immediate  result  was,  that  instead  of  any 
recognition  of  the  present  action  of  our  glorified  Redeemer, 
the  Holy  Eucharist  was  supposed  to  be  a  mere  memorial  of 
His  season  of  humiliation.  It  was  merely  the  recollection  of 
Christ  dead,  not  the  intervention  of  Christ  living.  Its  benefit 
was  supposed  to  depend  not  ujDon  any  gift  bestowed  by  God, 
but  solely  upon  the  disposition  of  the  receiver.  The  elements 
wei'e  alleged  to  be  merely  ordinary  bread  and  wine.  In  the 
minds  of  faithful  and  devout  persons,  Zuinglius  said,  such 
emblems  would  excite  a  remembrance  of  Him  by  whom  they 
were  originally  employed,  and  thus  would  draw  down  those 
succours  of  grace  with  which  Almighty  God  is  always  ready 
to  meet  any  pious  aspiration.  But  he  admitted  of  no  res  sacra- 
inenli  ^  at  all — no  inward  part,  contained  in,  and  communicated 
through,  that  which  was  outward.  So  that  his  system  deprived 
the  Sacrament  of  its  most  important  portion,  and  resolved  it 
into  a  mere  outside,  alike  destitute  of  sacredness  and  reality. 

Secondly — The  notion  of  Our  Lord's  hearers  at  Capernaum 
was  the  exact  converse.  Not  comprehending  the  mysterious 
character  of  that  gift  which  it  was  His  merciful  purpose  to 
bestow  upon  His  people,  they  could  put  no  other  meaning  upon 
Our  Saviour's  words  than  that  His  Flesh  was  to  be  divided  into 


'  Zuinglius  asserted,  "  quod  Christi  corpus,  quum  in  coena,  quum  in 
inentibua  piorum,  non  aliter  sit,  quam  sola  coutemplatione." — EbranVs 
Dogma  vain  lltil.  Ahendmahle  vol.  ii.  p.  "259. 

•  "  Cuin  sacramentum  corporis  Christi  nomino,  non  quicquam  aliud 
quani  panem,  qui  corporis  Christi  pro  nobis  mortui  figura  et  typus  est, 
intelligo." — JDe  Coena  Jhnnini  plana  et  hreinx  Imtitutio  ;  Zuimjlims  Works, 
vol.  ii.  fol.  273.  "Si  ergo  signum  tantuni  rei  est,  res  ipsa  non  est." — Ad 
Principes  Germanise  Eputola.    Id.  fol.  645. 


THE  GIFT   AND  THE   ELEMENTS.  87 

portions,  and  distributed  as  natural  food  to  men.  Their  own 
words  show  that  they  understood  neither  the  meaning  nor 
advantage  of  the  process  contemplated.  Without  believing  the 
mystery  of  the  Incarnation,  they  could  see  no  purpose  in  that 
communication  of  Himself  whereby  it  was  Our  Lord's  gracious 
intention  to  impart  spiritual  grace.  And  even  if  they  had 
more  fully  apprehended  Our  Lord's  nature,  they  could  hardly 
have  divined  the  exact  character  of  that  blessing  which  He 
was  about  to  bestow,  till  He  Himself  was  pleased  to  put  an 
interpretation  upon  His  prophetic  words,  by  the  institution 
of  the  Holy  Eucharist.  For  the  outward  and  inward  parts 
in  this  ordinance  are  so  entirely  relevant  to  one  another,  that 
the  nature  of  the  one  part  cannot  be  understood  without 
reference  to  the  other.  It  is  the  very  principle  of  a  sacrament 
that  the  inward  part  cannot  in  any  way  be  an  object  to  the 
senses ;  so  that  to  exclude  all  consideration  of  an  outward  part, 
is  to  overthrow  the  purpose  of  a  sacrament  altogether.  For 
since  this  ordinance  is  a  mean  whex'eby  God  is  pleased  to  bestow 
inward  gifts  through  external  agents,  to  leave  out  one  link 
destroys  the  coherence  of  the  whole  transaction.  The  same 
Fathers  who  tell  us  that  the  consecrated  elements  consist  of 
two  parts,  and  that  the  inward  part,  wherein  lies  their  whole 
value,  is  nothing  less  than  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Cln-ist,  look 
upon  it  as  monstrous  to  imagine  that  this  hidden  gift  can  in 
any  way  come  into  contact  with  our  external  senses.  St. 
Augustin,  who  speaks  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  as  a  mean  whereby 
men  may  eat  angels'  food,  tells  us  that  the  discourse  of  Our 
Lord  at  Capernaum  must  have  seemed  as  though  he  was 
recommending  a  monstrous  crime ;  ^  that  "  to  eat  a  man's  flesh 
would  seem  more  horrible  than  to  kill ;  to  drink  human  blood 
than  to  shed  it."  ^  St.  Irenseus,  who  speaks  of  the  reception  of 
Our  Lord's  Body  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  as  the  renewing 
principle  of  our  flesh,  refers  to  the  charge  that  they  devoured 
human  victims,  as  a  horrible  imputation  brought  upon  Chris- 

*  De  Doctrina  Christiana,  iii.  sec.  16. 

^  Contra  Adver.  Legis,  lib.  ii.  sec.  33,  vol.  viii.  p.  599. 


88  THE   RELATION   BETWEEN 

tians  through  the  evidence  of  slaves,  who  either  misunderstood 
or  misrepresented  what  they  had  heard  from  their  masters  re- 
specting the  Holy  Eucharist.  ^ 

There  is  one  ancient  writer  alone  whose  words  at  all  sanction 
the  error  of  the  Capernaites,  and  he  would  be  scarcely  important 
enough  to  desei've  attention  did  he  not  exhibit  exactly  that 
carnal  view  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  which  is  censured  in  the 
Articles  of  the  Church  of  England.  This  is  Anastasius  Sinaita,'^ 
who  wrote  against  the  Gaianitse,  a  sect  of  Eutychians,  who 
denied  that  Our  Lord's  human  Body  had  ever  been  corruptible. 
His  arguments  against  them  show  how  little  tendency  there 
was  in  those  days  towards  the  error  of  a  figurative  presence, 
but  they  lie  open  to  the  opposite  charge  of  implying  a  carnal 
particii^ation.  For  he  excludes  the  idea  of  a  sacramentum,  as 
much  as  Zuinglius  did  that  of  a  res  sacramenti.  No  doubt  he 
must  have  supjiosed  that  the  senses  of  men  were  withheld  by 
some  supernatural  power  from  discerning  the  real  character 
of  that  which  they  handled,  and  of  which  they  partook ;  but 
his  argument  would  certainly  seem  to  imply  that  Our  Lord's 
Body  is  present  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  under  the  same  natural 
conditions  which  attached  to  it  when  it  was  upon  earth.  He 
begins  by  asking  his  Eutychian  opponent  whether  he  allowed 
that  Our  Lord's  Body  and  Blood  were  truly  present  in  the 
Holy  Eucharist.  The  answer  he  sujiposes  to  be  that  "the 
Holy  Communion  is  not  merely  a  figure  of  Christ's  Body,  or 
simple  bread,  but  that  very  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  which 
was  Incarnate  and  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary."  To  this  Anasta- 
sius replies,  under  the  title  of  Orthodox  : 

"  Such  is  our  belief :  we  confess  this,  in  accordance  with 
Christ's  words  to  His  disciples,  in  the  mystic  supper,  when  He 
gave  them  the  life-giving  bread :   '  Take,  eat,  this  is  My  Body.' 

Since  Christ  then  confesses  that  this  is  truly  His  Body 

and  Blood,  whicli  we   faithful  take,  come,  bring   us  a  portion 

*  Frajjinenta  Ireusei,  p.  843.     Maasuet. 

"^  Probably  in  the  seventh  century,  and  somewhat  later  than  his  name- 
sake, the  Patriarch  of  Antioch. — Vide  Fabricius,  Bib.  Grxca,  lib.  v. 
(J.  35. 


THE  GIFT  AND  THE   ELEMENTS.  89 

from  the  communion  of  your  Church  as  professing  to  be  the 
most  orthodox  among  Churches,  and  let  us  keep  this  Body  and 
Blood  of  Christ  with  all  honour  and  reverence  in  a  vessel.  And 
if  within  a  few  days  it  is  not  corrupted,  changed,  or  altered,  it 
will  be  obvious  that  you  are  right  in  asserting  that  the  Body 
of  Christ  was  free  from  corruption  from  the  very  moment  of 
the  Incarnation ;  but  if  it  be  corrupted  or  changed,  you  must 
necessarily  confess  one  of  two  things,  either  that  the  thing 
which  you  receive  is  not  the  true  Body  of  Christ,  but  only 
a  figure  or  sign  of  it ;  or  that  on  account  of  your  corrupted  faith 
the  Holy  Spirit  has  not  descended  upon  it ;  or  that  Christ's 
Body  before  its  resurrection  was  subject  to  corruption,  as  being 
a  Body,  which  was  slain,  wounded,  divided,  and  eaten."  ^ 

This  passage  not  only  refers  to  Our  Lord's  Body  as  though  it 
still  retained  the  same  conditions  which  had  belonged  to  it  before 
the  Resurrection,  but  it  also  loses  sight  of  the  essential  charac- 
teristic of  a  sacrament,  by  supposing  that  its  inward  part  can  be 
an  object  to  the  senses  of  men.  So  that  it  involves  the  very 
supposition  which  is  censured  in  the  28th  Article  ;  such  "  change 
of  the  substance  of  bread  and  wine,"  as  "  overthroweth  the  nature 
of  a  sacrament."  The  opinion  here  objected  to  must  be  some- 
thing which  runs  counter  to  the  sacramental  principle,  that  is,  to 
the  idea  that  an  inward  pai't  and  an  outward  part  are  coupled 
together ;  the  last  an  object  to  the  senses,  the  former  to  the 
mind.  Such  a  notion  would  have  been  rejected  by  Aquinas  and 
the  other  schoolmen,  although  the  different  meaning  which  they 
attach  to  the  word  substance  produces  a  verbal  contradiction 
between  them  and  the  Church  of  England.  The  word  substance, 
in  the  28th  Article,  seems  intended  to  express  that  which  is 
material  in  the  consecrated  elements ;  the  sacramentum  namely, 
or  outward  and  visible  sign.  To  suppose  that  this  passes  wholly 
away,  would  be  the  error  of  Anastasius,  and  would  overthrow 
the  nature  of  a  sacrament,  because  it  would  exclude  one  of  those 
parts  which  is  characteristic  of  such  ordinances.  But  the  meaning 
of  the  word  substance,  as  understood  by  the  schoolmen,  was  wholly 

^  Anast.  Sin.  Vise  Dux,  23.  Bib.  Pat.  ix.  p.  855.  Something  similar 
is  implied  in  the  Epist.  ad  Epis.  Doar.     But  the  letter  is  not  Damascene's. 


90  THE  EELATION   BETWEEN 

different. '  The  Aristotelian  philosophy,  on  which  their  expres- 
sions were  moulded,  divided  all  objects  into  the  accidental  part, 
which  was  an  object  to  the  senses,  and  the  substantial,  which  was 
an  object  only  to  the  mind.  By  substance,  therefore,  in  the  Holy 
Eucharist,  they  understood  not  the  Sacr amentum,  but  the  Res 
Sacramenti.  This  more  subtile  sense  of  the  word  substance, 
which  had  become  familiar  in  Theology,  was  employed  by  the 
Council  of  Trent,  when  it  declared  its  mind  in  opposition  to  the 
Lutheran  doctrine  of  Consubstantiation.  So  that  when  the 
Church  of  England  denies  that  the  substance  of  bread  and  wine 
is  changed  in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  she  refers  to  the  sacramentum, 
or  that  which  is  an  object  to  the  senses.  But  when  the  Church 
of  Home  speaks  of  change  of  substance,  there  is  no  reason  why 
she  may  not  be  understood  to  refer  to  the  res  sacramenti,  or 
that  which  is  not  an  object  to  the  senses.  If  the  question  were 
understood  in  this  way,  the  contradiction  would  be  verbal,  rather 
than  real ;  in  language  and  not  in  thought.  The  carnal  or 
Capei'naite  notion  is  that  which  the  words  of  the  Article  really 
censure ;  for  to  exclude  the  idea  of  a  sacramentum,,  or  external 
part,  would  overthrow  the  very  nature  of  a  sacrament. 

Such  are  the  theories  which  have  resulted  from  regarding  one 
part  only  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  to  the  exclusion  of  the  other  : 

'  According  to  this  philosophy,  all  objects  were  referable  to  ten  heads. 
Substance,  Quantity,  Quality,  and  seven  kinds  of  relation.  These  ten 
heads,  or  categories,  were  a  metaphysical  classification,  according  to  which 
every  conceivable  object  was  supposed  to  be  divisible.  The  first.  Sub- 
stance, expressed  the  Quulditi/  of  an  object,  i.  e.  what  it  is,  (jitid  est : 
the  other  nine  categories  expressed  its  accidents.  Now  it  was  held  that 
there  were  two  sources  of  knowledge,  senge  and  intellect  (IS.  Thorn.  Opusc. 
c.  29,  p.  400).  Of  these,  sense  was  exclusively  conversant  with  the  acci- 
ilents  of  things.  For  "  sensus  est  cognoscitivus  accidentinm."  (iSumma 
Theol.  i.  78.  a.)  But  the  Sitl'sfnnce,  or  Quiddity,  was  an  object  to  intellect 
alone.  "Quidditas  rei  sensibilis  e.it  objectum  intellectus  proprium,  ut 
dicitur  in  3  de  Anima."  (Opusc.  x.xix.  p.  400.)  And  again,  "Quidditas 
rei  particularis  in  particular!  non  spectat  ut  per  se  objectum  ad  illos  sen- 
sus exteriorea,  cum  quiddita.s  ista  substantia  sit,  et  non  accidens."  (Id. 
p.  401.)  Hence  it  was  held  that  "Substantia  de  se,  in  quantum  sub- 
stantia, locum  non  occupet."  (OfHisc.  lix.  3,  p.  677.)  The  genuineness 
of  some  of  S.  Thomas's  Opuscula  ia  doubtful ;  but  at  any  rate  they  ex- 
press the  opinions  of  his  school. 


THE  GIFT  AND   THE   ELEMENTS.  &I 

from  denying,  as  Zuinglius  did,  the  inward  grace ;  or  like 
Anastasius  Sinaita,  the  outward  form.  But  since  the  due  union 
of  these  two  parts  of  a  sacrament  is  not  less  essential  than  the 
admission  of  each,  there  are  two  other  errors  into  which  it  is 
possible  to  fall :  the  outward  and  inward  part  may  be  confused 
with  one  another,  as  was  done  by  Luther,  or  separated,  as  was 
done  by  Calvin.  The  peculiar  theory  of  Luther  on  this  subject 
resulted  from  the  contending  influence  of  two  opposite  principles. 
The  associations  of  his  youth,  reinforced  by  his  antipathy  to  the 
revolutionary  spirit  of  the  Swiss  reformers,  inclined  him  to  look 
with  reverence  on  the  Holy  Eucharist.  On  the  other  hand,  he 
was  resolved  to  maintain  inviolate  his  favourite  principle  of 
justification  exclusively  by  faith.  Now  the  Lutheran  ^  doctrine 
of  justification  by  faith  is  incompatible  with  any  real  belief  in 
the  validity  of  sacraments.  If  a  man  can  place  himseK  in  a  state  i 
of  safety  and  acceptance,  by  the  mere  conviction  of  his  own  mind, 
what  need  has  he  of  external  ordinances  ?  A  person  who  pos- 
sessed the  secret  which  was  sought  for  by  the  Alchymists,  could 
hardly  be  expected  to  earn  his  daily  bread  by  the  toilsome 
processes  of  oi'dinary  labour  ;  and  those  who  imagined  that 
man's  salvation  was  wrought  out  by_  his  own  assurance  of  its 
attainment,  could  never  attach  any  real  value  to  the  means  of 
grace.  That  the  importance  of  sacraments  was  an  excrescence 
in  Luther's  system,  and  had  no  root  in  its  real  life,  is  shown  by 
the  history  of  his  followers.  Symptoms  of  this  might  be  discerned 
even  in  his  own  lifetime :   Melanchthon  gradually  omitted  the 

^  The  Lutheran  doctrine  was  expressed  with  the  utmost  distinctness 
in  the  Confession  of  Augsburg,  as  it  was  presented  by  the  Protestants 
to  the  Emperor  A.D.  1530,  and  printed  1531.  The  Confessio  Variata, 
which  modifies  it  greatly,  was  substituted  by  Melanchthon,  "privato  ausu," 
A.D.  1540. — Pfaff,  Introd.  Hist,  in  Lihros  Symholicos,  iii.  6.  The  original 
Confession  asserts  judifying  faith  to  be  the  faith  of  the  man  who  believes 
himself  to  he  justified.  The  faith  which  God  imputes  for  righteousness 
is  said  to  be  "cum  credunt  se  in  gratiam  recipi,  et  peccata  remitti  prop- 
ter Christum." — Art.  4.  In  Art.  5  it  is  said  that  God  "  justificat  hos,  qui 
credunt,  se  propter  Christum  in  gratiam  recipi."  In  the  12th,  faith  is 
defined  to  be  that  which  "  credit  propter  Christum  remitti  peccata,  et 
consolatur  conscientiam  j "  and  so  in  the  13th,  faith  "  quae  credat  remitti 
peccata." 


92  THE  RELATION   BETWEEN 

stronger  statements  which  had  at  first  been  introduced  into  the 
Confession  of  Augsburg ; '  Avhile  CEcolampadius,^  his  opponent 
at  Marburg,  did  not  fail  to  press  upon  him  that  his  notion 
respecting  the  Holy  Eucharist  was  incompatible  with  his  own 
view  of  the  sole  importance  of  faith.^ 

In  what  way,  then,  was  Luther  to  reconcile  tendencies  which 
led  him  to  attach  sacredness  to  the  Holy  Eucharist,  while  they 
forbad  him  to  allow  real  efi&cacy  to  the  means  of  grace  ?  Such 
was  the  problem  before  him ;  and  his  doctrine  on  this  sacrament 
resulted  from  the  combination  of  these  different  influences.  He 
avowed  plainly  his  belief  in  the  real  presence  of  Our  Lord's 
natural  body ;  and  expressed  himself  on  this  subject  with  a 
distinctness  which  seemed  almost  to  imply  a  carnal  participation. 

^  In  the  original  copy  of  the  Confession  of  Augsburg  (in  German), 
A.D.  1530,  the  10th  Article  stands  as  follows :  "About  the  Supper  of  the 
Lord  it  is  taught  that  the  true  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  is  truly  present 
in  the  Supper  under  the  form  of  bread  and  loine,  and  is  there  distributed 
and  taken.  And  the  contrary  doctrine  is  rejected."  [This  resembles  the 
statement  of  our  first  book  of  Homilies,  "  of  the  due  receiving  of  His 
blessed  Body  and  Blood  under  the  form  of  bread  and  wine."]  But  in  the 
first  Latin  version,  A.D.  1531,  some  of  the  most  important  words  are 
omitted.  "  About  the  Supper  of  the  Lord,  they  teach  that  the  Body  and 
Blood  of  Christ  are  truly  present,  and  are  distributed  to  them  who  eat 
in  the  Supper  of  the  Lord,  and  they  condemn  those  who  teach  otherwise." 
Melanchthon's  revised  Confession,  called  the  Variata,  A.D.  1540,  exhibits 
a  further  alteration.  "About  the  Supper  of  the  Lord  they  teach  that 
with  the  bread  and  wine  there  are  truly  set  forth  [exhibeantur]  the  Body 
and  Blood  of  Christ  to  those  who  eat  in  the  Lord's  Supper."  This  waa 
an  earnest  of  the  change  which  has  since  been  witnessed.  "Since  the 
middle  of  the  eighteenth  century,"  says  Liicke,  "the  generality,  whether 
of  dogmatic  or  exegetical  writers  among  the  Lutherans,  have  at  first 
silently,  and  then  avowedly,  adopted  the  Calvinistic  or  Zuinglian  theory 
of  the  Lord's  Supper." — Commentary  on  St.  John,  vol.  ii.  p.  732. 

*  Vide  Ebrard,  vol.  ii.  p.  319. 

'  Bretschneider  observes,  in  reference  to  Luther's  system,  "Inasmuch 
as  the  force  and  benefit  of  reception  depends  solely  on  faith  in  Jesus  as 
Atoner  (fides  salvifica),  and  this  faith  by  no  means  includes  a  belief  in 
the  real  presence  of  the  Body  and  Blood  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  it  follows 
from  the  system  itself  that  a  man  enjoys  all  th6'  benefits  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  by  faith  in  Jesus,  as  Atoner,  although  he  doubts  about  the  real 
presence.  Even  according  to  the  system  of  the  Symbolical  Books,  the 
subtile  theory  about  the  real  presence  has  no  connexion  with  the  purpose 
of  the  Lord's  Supper." — Dogmatik  der  Lutherischen  Kirche,  sec.  202,  vol. 
ii.  p.  687.     (Leipsic,  1838.)" 


THE  GIFT  AND   THE   ELEMENTS.  93 

"When  Melanchthon  was  about  to  meet  Bucer  at  Cassel,he  received 
the  following  instructions  from  Luther :  "  This,  in  short,  is  our 
opinion ;  that  the  Body  of  Christ  is  truly  eaten  in  and  with  the 
bread,  so  that  every  thing  which  the  bread  does  and  suffers,  the 
Body  of  Christ  does  and  suffers  ;  it  is  divided,  eaten,  and  chewed 
with  the  teeth."  ^ 

It  might  be  supposed  that  such  views  as  these  respecting  the 
reality  of  Our  Lord's  presence,  would  lead  Luther  to  adopt  the 
opinions  of  the  ancient  Church  respecting  its  efficacy.  But  here 
came  in  the  other  side  of  his  opinions.  To  attribute  the  same 
weight  as  had  formerly  been  done  to  the  restoration  of  mankind 
in  the  New  Adam ;  to  suppose  that  those  supernatural  gifts 
which  had  been  lost  in  our  first  father,  are  given  back  in  our 
Second ;  to  believe  in  a  true  re-creation  of  man's  nature,  by 
which  it  is  regenerated,  reformed,  and  corroborated,  so  that  those 
who  were  alienated  in  Adam  are  reinstated  through  a  real  union 
with  Christ — all  this  would  have  been  to  attribute  a  value  to 
external  ordinances  which  was  inconsistent  with  Luther's  whole 
system.  It  was  necessary,  therefore,  to  find  some  other  reason 
by  which  to  account  for  so  peculiar  an  institution  as  the  Holy 
Eucharist.  Hence  the  perplexity  in  which  he  found  himself  in 
his  discussion  with  ZuingUus  and  Q^colampadius  at  Marburg. 
He  is  said  to  have  written  the  words  of  Institution  with  chalk 
upon  the  table  before  him,  and  when  called  upon  to  explain  them 
in  a  manner  less  inconsistent  and  unmeaning,  his  only  reply 
consisted  of  coarse  illustrations  ^  and  violent  reiteration.  "  I 
don't  ask,"  he  said,  "  what  is  the  use  of  this  bodily  eating,  but 
whether  it  is  not  so  written  ?  It  is  enough  that  God  has  said  it : 
man  has  no  choice  but  to  do  it.  God  has  in  this  case  attached 
acceptance  with  Him  to  the  bodily  eating.  If  God  told  me  to 
eat  dung  I  should  do  it  too."  * 

^  Planck  (Gesch.  des  Prot.  LehrbegrifFs,  vol.  iii.  part  i.  p.  369)  adds 
the  words,  "  propter  unionem  sacramentalem :  "  but  they  do  not  occur  in 
the  letter  of  Dec.  17,  1534. — Luther  s  Letters.     Be  Wette,  vol.  iv.  p.  572. 

2  "  Wenn  Gott  etwas  sage,  miisse  man 's  glauben,  selbst  wenn  Gott  sage, 
dass  ein  Hufeisen  sein  Leib  sei." — Ebrard,  vol.  ii.  p.  318. 

3  Ebrard,  vol.  ii.  p.  320. 


94  THE   Ivi-i^ATlUN    iiKl  vv  jit-iN 

In  thus  admitting  that  acceptance  with  God  was  in  any  way 
attached  to  the  reception  of  Our  Lord's  Humanity,  Luther  was 
far  from  meaning  that  this  gift  followed  from  our  incorporation 
into  Him.  The  effect  of  the  Holy  Eucharist,  he  maintained,  was 
purely  arbitrary  and  technical.  "  If  it  were  mere  bread  and 
wine,  as  you  say  it  is,"  he  told  Carolstad,  "  and  yet  if  those 
words  were  there,  '  Take,  eat,  this  is  My  Body  which  is  given  for 
you,'  it  would  be  just  as  profitable  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins, 
by  virtue  of  this  expression.'"  In  his  answer  to  Carolstad,'' 
therefore,  as  well  as  on  other  occasions,^  he  studiously  abstained 
from  dwelling  on  what  he  supposed  to  be  the  advantage  of  the 
ordinance.  His  real  opinion,  however,  appears  to  have  been 
that  Our  Lord's  Presence  is  given  both  as  a  striking  proof  of 
God's  favour*  towards  mankind,  and  as  peculiarly  fitted  to 
produce  an  inipression  upon  the  receiver.  He  was  accustomed, 
therefore,  to  speak  of  the  Sacrament  as  a  sign ;  not,  as  Planck  * 
observes,  because  he  considered  bread  to  be  the  sign  of  Our 
Lord's  Body ;  the  sign  which  he  thought  of  consisted  at  once  of 
bread  and  of  the  Body  of  Our  Lord.  So  that  though  he 
recognised  the  existence  of  a  res  sacramenti,  yet  he  dealt  with  it 
as  though  it  had  been  an  emblem  only,  and  not  a  reality.  The 
Body    of    Our    Lord    was    not,   as   the    Church    had    always 

'  Planck,  vol.  ii.  p.  245.  2  j(j  ^^i  jj  p  241. 

8  Id.  vol.  ii.  p.  328. 

■*  The  notion  that  Christ's  Presence  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  a  sign  of 
God's  general  purposes,  but  not  an  especial  means  through  which  He 
bestows  His  gifts,  may  be  found  also  in  Melanchthon.  "The  .Supper  of 
the  Lord,"  he  says,  "signifies  that  Christ  has  made  satisfaction  for  our 
eins,  and  promised  us  forgiveness  ;  and  yet  it  does  luit  foUow  that  Christ's 
Body  is  not  present ." — Eltrard,  ii.  334.  Again  he  says:  "The  words  of 
the  Sacrament  ....  are  a  witness  that  Christ  is  with  us  ;  He  says  He 
gives  us  His  Body  to  show  that  He  is  not  only  exalted  above  us  as  our 
Creator,  but  was  and  is  really  with  us." — Id.  ii.  439.  Calvin  frequently 
observes  upon  the  little  stress  which  the  Lutherans  lay  on  the  hent'jits  of 
the  Holy  Eucharist.  "  Quorsum  instituta  sit  Cana,  et  quem  fructum 
afl'erat  fidelibus,  altum  apud  eos  silentiuni  fuit." — ir(u7.-*f,  vol.  viii.  734. 

■''  Planck,  ii.  212.  80  in  his  Sermon,  " De  Eicommunicatione"  he  says: 
"Altera  et  posterior  communio  est  externa,  corporalis,  et  visibilis,  quae 
fit  ipsa  participatione  sacramenti,  eaque  est  signum  prioris  illius,  intemae 
et  spiritualis  commuuicationis." — llospinian,  vol.  ii.  p.  10. 


THE  GIFT   AND  THE   ELEMENTS.  95 

supposed,  a  life-giving  principle,  which  was  actually  com- 
municated through  the  instrumentality  of  certain  sensible 
media ;  it  was  only  intended  to  give  greater  impressiveness  to 
the  ordinance,  and  its  office  terminated  in  the  ordinance  itself. 
Its  purpose  was  like  that  of  a  picture  or  a  crucifix,  which,  though 
wholly  inoperative  in  themselves,  may  be  productive  of  effect 
upon  the  beholder.  But  what  rendered  it  infinitely  more 
sacred  than  any  such  emblem,  was  that  it  was  the  real  Body 
and  Blood  of  the  Saviour  of  the  world.  What  is  this,  in  fact, 
but  the  notion  attributed  by  Nicetas  the  Paphlagonian  to  those 
who  deposed  Photius  ?  To  give  greater  solemnity  to  their  act, 
he  says,  the  members  of  the  Council  infused  a  drop  of  Our 
Lord's  Blood  into  the  ink  with  which  they  signed  the  sentence 
of  deposition.  It  would  seem  to  be  exactly  an  analogous  effect 
which  Luther  attributed  to  Our  Lord's  Presence  in  the  Holy 
Eucharist.  He  neither  allowed  that  it  rendered  the  Sacrament 
really  more  valid,  nor  that  it  was  calculated  in  itself  to  produce 
any  beneficial  results  ;^  but  he  supposed  that  it  would  impart  an 
additional  solemnity  to  the  action. 


^  When  Luther  speaks,  therefore,  of  the  Holy  Eucharist,  as  assuring  us 
of  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  he  does  not  mean  that  this  benefit  is  conveyed 
to  us  through  Our  Lord — the  res  sacramenti,  or  thing  signified ;  he  con- 
siders the  Sacrament  to  be  merely  a  confirmation  of  God's  general  promises 
of  forgiveness.  "Is  sacramenti  est  usus,  ut  dicere  hoc  vere  possis  :  habeo 
hie  apertum  verbum,  remissa  mihi  esse  peccata.  Signum  quoque  accepi, 
manducavi  etbibi,  id  quod  certo  comprobare  possum." — Concio  ad  Sacram. 
Altaris,  vol.  i.  fol.  80.  (Ed.  1582.)  He  has  no  idea,  therefore,  that  the 
thing  given  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  more  valuable  than  any  promise. 
On  the  contrary,  he  speaks  of  the  "verba  benedictionis "  as  being  the 
"panis  vitae." — Formula  Commun.  pro  Eccl.  Wittemhurg.  vol.  ii.  fol.  385. 
He  contrasts  the  two  together,  and  prefers  the  promise :  De  Capf.  Babyl. 
vol.  ii.  fol.  70.  And  he  says,  "  sacramentalis  "  [manducatio]  "non  vivi- 
ficat." — Id.  fol.  64.  And  again,  "Non  in  aliud  pane  aut  sacramento 
utitur,  quam  fidei  confirmandse  gratia." — Sermo  de  Eucliar.  vol.  vii.  fol. 
337.  And  even  when  writing  against  the  Sacramentarians,  when  the 
passages  which  he  quotes  compel  him  to  maintain  that  Christ's  Body  is 
a  seed  of  resurrection  to  the  bodies  of  men,  he  never  gets  free  from  his 
capital  error — that  the  res  sacramenti  itself  is  only  a  jjledge  or  token  of 
something  which  is  effected  independently  of  it.  "  Proprium  suum  corpus 
nobis  dat  ad  comedendum,  ut  nos  eo  ^ignore  ohsignet,  et  in  certissimam 
spem  adducat,"  &c. — Befens.  Verb.  Coenie.     Works,  vol.  vii.  fol.  3y5. 


96  THE   RELATION   BETWEEN 

Now  it  is  obvious  that  such  a  view  of  Our  Lord's  Presence  is 
incompatible  with  the  very  purpose  of  a  sacrament,  because  it 
confuses  the  functions  of  the  outward  sign  and  the  inward  grace. 
If  Our  Lord's  Body  be  present  in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  it  is 
because  that  ordinance  has  been  appointed  as  the  medium 
whereby  its  salutary  influence  is  communicated  to  men.  The 
very  object  of  uniting  it  with  certain  sensible  elements,  is  to 
communicate  that  secret  gift,  of  which  human  senses  cannot  take 
cognizance.  To  suppose,  therefore,  that  Our  Lord's  Body  is 
really  present,  but  that  it  is  only  a  sign,  whereby  we  are  assured 
of  God's  goodness,  and  whereby  the  feelings  are  impressed,  is  to 
mix  together  things  in  their  nature  heterogeneous — the  outward 
sign  and  the  thing  signified.  It  somewhat  resembles  the 
superstitious  use  of  the  consecrated  elements  which  St.  Augustin  ^ 
tells  us  was  made  by  the  mother  of  Acatius,  when  she  employed 
it  as  a  cataplasm  for  the  opening  of  his  eyes.  It  might  please 
God  to  bless  such  a  step  ;  but  it  seems  to  imply  a  misapprehension 
of  the  real  nature  of  Christ's  Presence.  In  like  manner  did 
Luther  lose  sight  of  the  real  benefit  of  Our  Lord's  Body,  Tjjhich 
can  only  be  appreciated  by  those  mIio  discern  it  to  be  the 
res  sacramenti,  when  he  assigned  to  it  an  object  and  an  use, 
which  it  could  only  discharge  if  it  were  the  sacramentum,  or 
external  emblem. 

These  views  of  Luther's  exposed  him  to  the  charge  which 
was  brought  against  him  by  his  opponents,  of  holding  a 
theory  which  they  described  as  Consttbstantiation.  The 
term,  it  must  be  remembered,  was  not  his,  but  that  of  his 
opponents;^  but  it  arose  naturally  enough  out  of  some  of 
his  assertions.  Among  his  various  and  inconsistent  state- 
ments respecting  the  Holy  Eucharist,  he  referred  with 
approbation^   to    an    assertion   of   Peter    D'Ailly,^    that    the 

'  S.  Aug.  Opus.  Imperf.  contra  Julian,  iii.  sec.  162. 

*  Gerhard  speaks  of  the  term  as  applied  to  Lutherans  by  their  oppo- 
nents.— Loci  Theal.  No.  69  and  98,  with  Ootta's  note. 

^  De  Captiv.  Babyl.  vol.  ii.  fol.  67. 

*  D'Ailly  begins  by  saying,  "Sciendum  e.^t,  quod  Catholici  concorda- 
verint  in  hoc,  quod  corpus  Christi  vere  et  priucipaliter  est  in  sacramento 


THE  GIFT  AND  THE   ELEMENTS.  97 

co-existence  of  two  substances  was  not  in  itself  more  inconceivable 
than  the  co-existence  of  two  qualities,  though  it  was  less  con- 
formable to  the  established  phraseology  of  the  Church.  This 
was  thrown  out  by  D'Ailly,  merely  as  an  account  which  might 
be  given  of  the  manner  in  which  Our  Lord's  Body  comes  to  be 
present  in  the  Holy  Eucharist;  it  was  not  D'Ailly 's  intention  to 
confound  the  purposes  of  the  outward  part  and  the  inward  part 
in  this  sacrament,  or  to  derogate  from  that  harmonious  order, 
whereby  a  divine  gift  is  communicated  through  external  means. 
Hence,  however,  arose  the  term  Consubstantiation,  which  has 
ever  since  been  regarded  as  characteristic  of  Lutheranisra,  be- 
cause Luther's  whole  system  led  to  his  confounding  the  purposes 
of  the  sacramentum  and  res  sacramenti ;  while  this  term  had 
a  tendency  to  confound  their  natures.  So  that  it  accorded  well 
enough  with  a  theory,  the  purpose  of  which  was  to  vindicate 
the  sacredness  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  without  admitting  its 
efficacy.  For  to  do  justice  to  this  ordinance  as  a  means  of  grace, 
it  was  essential  to  recognize  both  its  outward  form  and  its 
inward  life ;  and  thus  to  consider  the  former  to  be  the  divinely 
appointed  medium  through  which  it  was  the  will  of  God  to 
communicate  the  lattei".  All  this  was  incompatible  with 
Luther's  princi^Dles,  who  was  ready  indeed  to  admit  the  reality 
of  Our  Lord's  Presence,  but  not  to  recognize  the  greatness  of 
those  gifts  which  are  communicated  through  the  Humanity  of 
the  Second  Adam,  So  that  his  system  could  not  be  maintained 
except  by  mixing  together  the  outward  sign  and  the  inward 
reality ;  by  attributing  to  Our  Lord's  Body  a  mere  carnal  office, 
instead  of  regarding  it  as  the  life-giving  principle  of  grace.  And 
thus  he  was  at  once  a  zealot  for  Our  Lord's  bodily  Presence, 

sub  speciebus  panis  et  vini.  Circa  modum  ponendi  fuerint  diversse  opini- 
ones."  The  third  opinion  which  he  states  is,  "  quod  substantia  panis 
remanet ;  "  of  which  he  says  "valde  possibile  est  substantiam  panis  co- 
existere  substantia  corporis,  nee  est  magis  impossibile  duas  substantias 
coexistere,  quam  duas  qualitates."  And  he  concludes  by  observing, 
"nullum  inconveniens  sequitur  ex  priore  modo  ponendi,  si  tarn  concor- 
daret  cum  determinatione  Ecclesise." — Qumstiones  Magidri  Petri  de  Al- 
liaco  Cardinalis  Canieracensis,  fol.  265.  On  the  Fourth  Book  of  Sen- 
tences. 

H 


98  THE  RELATION   BETWEEN 

while  he  made  the  belief  of  it  impossible,  by  rendering  it 
supei-fluous. 

Fourthly — There  remains  one  further  theory,  more  subtile 
and  plausible  than  the  preceding  ones,  by  which  the  notion  of  a 
sacrament  is  not  less  completely  overthrown  than  l)y  those  which 
have  been  described.  Though  it  be  admitted  that  a  sacrament 
consists  of  two  parts,  one  outward  and  the  other  inward,  and 
that  each  must  retain  its  due  office,  without  confusion  or  inter- 
mixture, yet  it  is  possible  so  to  separate  them  as  to  destroy 
their  sacramental  coherence,  and  thus  to  overthrow  the  purpose 
of  the  ordinance.  And  this  was  done  by  the  theory  of  Calvin. 
No  one  professed  to  go  further  than  he  did  in  asserting  the 
importance  of  the  inward  gift  which  is  bestowed  in  the  Holy 
Eucharist.  It  might  be  supposed  that  he  entered  into  the 
relation  between  this  sacrament  and  the  reconstruction  of  man- 
kind through  Christ;  and  that  he  accepted  St.  Cyril's  state- 
ments that  the  Humanity  of  Our  Lord  is  the  appointed  medium 
through  which  spiritual  blessings  are  conferred  upon  His 
brethren.  A  far  deeper  man  than  Zuinglius,'  he  saw  that  the 
re-creation  of  mankind  must  be  based  upon  that  supernatural 
system  of  events  which  had  its  commencement  in  the  Incarnation 
of  the  Second  Adam ;  more  clear-sighted  than  Luther,  he 
discriminated  accurately  between  the  inward  gift  and  the  out- 
ward sign.  But  it  was  to  no  purpose  that  he  recognised  each 
part  of  the  ordinance,  and  assigned  to  either  its  appropriate 
weight,  so  long  as  he  detached  the  one  from  the  other.  For 
since  it  is  the  very  conception  of  a  sacrament,  that  the  outward 
sign  is  the  medium  through  which  it  pleases  God  to  bestow  the 
inward  reality,  it  was  equally  fatal  to  deny  the  coherence,  as  the 
distinctness  or  integrity  of  its  parts. 

To  appreciate  fully  the  system  of  Calvin,  it  "is  necessary  to 
bear  in  mind  the  twofold  object  which  he  proposed  to  himself. 
On  the  one  hand,  he  wished  to  get  rid  of  consecration,  and 
therefore  could  not  admit  that  the  sacramentum  and  res  sacra- 

'  He  observes,  "quam  j)rofana  sit  (Zuinglii)  de  sacramentis  doctrina." 
— Calv.  litene  iiteditx  {Bretschntidtr),  p.  10.     Vide  Kahuin,  p.  31)4. 


THE  GIFT  AND  THE   ELEMENTS.  99 

menti  were  bound  to  one  another.  On  the  other  hand,  he 
desired  to  assign  its  full  value  to  the  virtus  sacramenti,  in  which 
their  action  results.  How  was  this  to  be  effected?  Since 
the  virtus  sacramenti  follows  from  the  res  sacramenti,  it  would 
seem  that  the  second  was  necessary  to  the  existence  of  the  first. 
Again,  the  consecration  of  the  elements  is  the  act  by  which 
the  outward  and  inward  parts  receive  that  mystic  coherence 
wliich  unites  them  into  a  whole ;  so  that  to  reject  the  principle 
of  coherence  would  involve  the  rejection  also  of  its  effects. 
These  difficulties  Calvin  attempted  to  overcome  by  saying,  first, 
that  a  res  sacramenti  really  exists,  though  it  be  not  present  in 
the  sacrament :  it  is  the  Body  of  Christ,  which  is  present  only  in 
heaven,  and  has  no  connexion  with  the  sacramentum,  which  is 
exhibited  upon  earth.  Next,  he  stated  that  the  virtus  sacra- 
menti followed  from  the  res  sacramenti  by  God's  appointment, 
either  through  the  lifting  of  the  receiver's  soul  into  heaven,  or 
through  the  diffusion  of  the  influence  of  Christ's  Body  upon 
earth. 

Now  it  appears  strange  that  so  acute  a  reasoner  as  Calvin 
should  put  these  two  last  suggestions  together  as  if  they  were 
only  two  ways  of  stating  the  same  hypothesis.^  For  they  are 
entii'ely  distinct  ideas ;  the  second  implies  that  some  force,  or 
virtue,  issues  from  Our  Lord's  Flesh,  as  the  means  whereby  its 
sphere  of  operations  is  extended ;  the  first,  that  though  Our 
Lord's  Body  is  not  really  present  upon  earth,  yet  that  it  may  be 
said  to  be  present  nominally  or  virtually,  because  the  approach 
of  the  soul  to  Christ  produces  the  same  results  as  if  it  were 
present.  So  that  in  the  one  case  Christ's  Body  is  supposed  to  be 
the  agent ;  in  the  other  the  souls  of  men.  Yet  the  ambiguity 
of  the  words  virtue  and  virtual  renders  it  possible  to  represent 
these  ideas  as  almost  identical.  And  this  was  not  an  incon- 
venient circumstance,  if  it  was  Calvin's  intention,  as  it  certainly 

*  Calvin  constantly  associates  the  two,  as  if  they  were  identical.  Thus, 
in  his  remarks  on  the  Consensus  Tigur.,  the  statement  that  "  Christus  .  .  . 
in  coelum  ad  se  .  .  .  nos  attollit,"  is  directly  followed  by  "ad  nos  sua 
virtute  descendit." — Niemeyer,  p.  215. 

H  2 


100  THE  RELATION   BETWEEN 

was  his  practice,  to  introduce  Our  Lord's  Body  as  though  it 
were  the  agent  in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  and  yet  not  to  assign  to 
it  any  real  part  in  the  transaction.  For  since  it  was  to  be 
nominally  put  forward,  witliout  really  exercising  any  influence, 
the  only  course  which  could  be  adopted  was  to  leave  its  mode  of 
action  ambiguous.  If  Our  Lord's  Body  were  really  an  agent  in 
this  sacrament,  it  must  be  supposed  that  the  capacity  to  be 
present  as  the  res  sacramenti,  or  thing  signified,  was  an  especial 
power  bestowed  upon  it  tlirough  its  oneness  with  Godhead.  But 
since  this  would  have  involved  the  validity  of  consecration, 
Calvin  substituted  the  intervention  of  the  Spirit,^  instead  of  the 
efi&cacy  of  Our  Lord's  Body,  as  the  time  res  sacramenti  by  which 
a  relation  is  brought  about  between  God  and  man.  This  en- 
abled him  to  rest  the  value  of  the  sacrament,  not  upon  any  gift 
which  had  actually  been  bestowed  through  the  Humanity  of 
Christ,  but  solely  upon  the  Divine  intention.  So  that  he  could 
speak  of  the  sacramentum,  or  external  part,  as  nothing  more 
than  a  seal,  charter,  or  title-deed,  by  which  the  Supreme  Being 
bore  witness  to  the  process  which  He  was  carrying  on  at  the 
same  moment  within  the  receiver's  soul  [vide  supra,  cap.  ii.]. 
And  the  only  connexion  between  the  sacramentum  and  virtus 
sacramenti  was  that  their  reception  was  simultaneous,  and 
that  they  were  bestowed  by  the  same  Giver  upon  the  same 
receiver. 

It  is  justly  complained  by  Kahnis  that  "  it  is  difficult  to 
enter  into  this  system,  not  on  account  of  its  depth,  but  by 
reason  of  its  artificial,  indefinite,  and  cloudy  nature.  For 
Calvin  treats  those  with  the  deepest  contemjjt  who  connect 
the  Body  and  Blood  with  the  elements,  while  yet  he  esteems 
it  a  gross  misrepresentation  if  any  one  denies  that  he  considers 
the  elements  to  be  the  vehicles  of  the  true  Body  and  Blood."  ^ 
By  this  double  system  he  was  able,  certainly,  to  dispense  with 
consecration,  and   yet  to  reiirosent  the  gift  bestowed  as   real 

'  "  Facit  arcana  Spiritus  virtus,  ut  <iufe  loconiin  spatio  distant,  inter 
se  uniantur." — Dr  lew  J'diticip.     Works,  viii.  744. 
-  Lelire  vom  Abeudiuahle,  p.  413. 


THE  GIFT   AND   THE   ELEMENTS.  101 

and  important.  But  then  there  was  a  practical  dishonesty 
in  professing  to  accord  with  the  strong  expressions  of  the  early 
Church,  while  he  discarded  the  only  principle  on  which  they 
could  really  be  justified.  For  what  was  the  meaning  of  the 
virtus  sacramenti  which  he  professed  to  retain  ?  The  Chiiroh 
had  supposed  that  it  was  that  relation  between  the  soul  of 
the  devout  i-eceiver  and  the  Humanity  of  Christ,  which  was 
consequent  upon  the  reception  of  Our  Lord's  Body  and  Blood 
through  the  consecrated  elements.  Now,  if  Calvin  meant  less 
than  this,  he  did  not  recognize  the  influence  of  Our  Lord's 
Humanity,  and  thus  fell  down  into  the  system  of  Zuinglius, 
which  he  had  censured.  For  he  must  suj)pose  the  benefit  to 
be  nothing  but  that  general  influence  of  Cod's  grace,  which  is 
present  in  all  ordinances.  But  if  he  meant  as  much  as  this, 
he  was  compelled  to  fall  back  vipon  that  monstrous  system  of 
arbitrary  reprobation  which  was  previously  noticed  (cap.  ii. 
p.  27).  For,  according  to  the  last  supposition,  the  virtus  sacra- 
menti is  that  relation  which  binds  the  soul  to  the  Humanity 
of  Our  Lord,  and  which  can  be  experienced  by  none  but  the 
devout  communicant.^  The  res  sacramenti  (according  to  the 
Church  system)  is  partaken  by  all,  because  Christ's  Presence 
depends  merely  upon  the  validity  of  consecration ;  but  the 
virtus  sacramenti  is  that  effect  which  follows  from  Christ's 
Presence,  where  there  is  a  living  relation  between  Him  and 
the  soul.  It  is  by  this  living  i-elation  only  that  the  branches 
hold  to  the  I'oot ;  for  the  branch  cannot  partake  the  life  of  the 
tree  except  by  living.     If  it  be  afiirmed,  then,  that  the  virtus 

^  This  is  expressly  affirmed  by  Calvin.  "Si  pateret  in  eos  Christo  in- 
gressus,  omni  ipsos  reatu  exiineret." — Niemeyer,  p.  211.  No  doubt  he 
attempts  to  escape  from  the  results  of  his  system,  by  alleging  the  fault 
to  be  on  man's  side — but  they  are  results  which  follow  inevitably  from 
his  principle  that  sacraments  are  "  organa  quibus  efficaciter  agit  Deus  hi, 
suis  electis." — Id.  p.  204.  For  he  denies  that  Christ's  sacramental  pre- 
sence is  bestowed  except  upon  those  who  have  faith :  "  Christum  absque 
fide  recipi." — Niemeyer,  p.  211.  And  faith,  he  says,  is  not  given,  ex- 
cept to  the  elect.  "Fidei  nostrse  origo  et  causa  est  divina  electio." — 
Be  Priedesti nation e.  Works,  viii.  61i.  "Speciale  donum  est  fides,  quo 
rata  fit  Dei  electio." — Id.  608. 


102  THE   RELATION   BETWEEN 

sacramenti  does  not  follow  in  the  way  of  effect  from  the  res 
sacramenti,  but  is  a  result  produced  immediately  by  Almighty 
God  in  the  soul,  why  is  not  the  sacramentum,  or  external 
pledge,  always  accompanied  by  this  consequence?  For  what 
is  meant  by  a  seal,  or  pledge,  which  does  not  secure  the  con- 
veyance of  the  thing  promised  ?  Now,  on  Calvin's  system,  the 
immediate  agency  of  Almighty  God  becomes  the  sole  inter- 
vening link  between  the  sacramentum,  or  external  sign,  by 
which  He  pledges  Himself  to  confer  a  blessing,  and  the  virtus 
sacramenti,  or  spiritual  effect.  Yet  it  is  admitted  on  all 
hands,  that  men  may  partake  of  the  outward  elements,  who 
do  not  share  in  the  spiritual  blessing.  Now  to  put  the  in- 
tention of  Almighty  God  in  place  of  the  res  sacramenti,  or 
actual  gift,  is  to  make  Him  responsible  for  the  failure.  For 
why  is  not  His  jiromise  always  performed  ?  There  can  be  no 
reason  assigned  except  that  secret  decree,  whereby  He  assigns 
some  of  His  creatures  to  mercy,  and  others  to  destruction. 

It  may  be  alleged,  perhaps,  as  an  objection  to  the  preceding 
statements,  that  they  sujipose  Calvin's  system  not  to  provide 
for  the  case  of  those  who  are  predeteimined  by  inevitable 
sentence  to  eternal  life,  but  who  approach  the  Holy  Eucharist 
before  their  conversion.^  It  might  be  enough  to  answer,  that 
this  is  only  one  fonn  of  a  difficulty  which  attaches  to  the  Cal- 
vinistic  system  at  large.  For  what  happens  if  such  persons 
die  before  their  conversion  ?  If  it  be  answered  that  He  who 
has  predestined  them  to  life  can  ensure  them  against  a  pre- 
mature removal.  He  can  ensure  them  also  against  profaning 
His  Holy  Altar.  But  perhaps  the  better  reply  would  be 
that  such  questions  need  not  be  answered :  because  all  which 
is  essential  in  any  system  is  to  explain  its  natural  and  nonnal 
action,  to  which   difficult   and   provisional  cases   must   adjust 

*  The  suggestion  in  Article  XX.  of  the  Consensus  Tigurinus  is  manifestly 
only  a  way  of  escaping  the  difticulty-  "  Fieri  iuterdum  potest,  ut  Sacne 
CoensB  iisus,  qui  in  actu  ipso  j>ropter  incogitantiani,  vel  tiirditatem  nostram 
paruiii  prodest,  fructum  deiude  suum  proferat."  ISIr.  Scott  says  that  to 
receive  the  Holy  Eucliarist  is  "no  duty"  "to  a  man  who  himself  has 
not  reason  to  conclude  that  he  is  a  believer." — MiiceU.  Ldters,  p.  292. 


THE  GIFT  AND  THE   ELEMENTS.  103 

themselves  by  a  general  analogy.  Such  is  the  case  in  regard 
to  the  difficult  question  of  adult  Baptism.  "We  know  that 
in  Baptism,  Christ  chooses  men  to  be  members  of  His  Body, 
and  bestows  that  gift  of  grace  whereby  this  union  is  effected. 
As  infants  by  birth  become  members  of  the  old  man,  so  is  it 
His  gracious  purpose  to  incorporate  them  at  the  same  tender 
age  into  the  New  Adam.  And  as  infants,  being  innocent  of 
actual  sin,  can  oppose  no  bar  to  His  grace,  we  are  sure  that 
His  merciful  purpose  takes  effect,  and  that  they  become  at 
once  living  members  of  His  Body.  But  the  case  becomes 
more  intricate  when  we  pass  to  the  adult  candidate  for  Bap- 
tism. What  is  the  exact  effect  of  the  gift  of  grace,  supposing 
that  his  impenitence  puts  a  bar  to  its  reception,  and  how 
far,  and  in  what  manner,  the  blessing  remains  suspended,* 
till  its  efficacy  is  brought  out  by  his  repentance,  are  points 
on  which  it  is  impossible  probably  to  speak  decisively.  All 
of  which  we  can  be  sure  is,  that  the  failure  does  not  arise 
from  the  deficiency  of  God's  grace,  but  from  the  impenitence 
of  the  receiver.  For  the  sacrament,  regarded  in  itself,  has 
the  same  character  as  when  it  is  ministered  to  infants  who 
cannot  oppose  its  efficacy.  So  that  the  nature  of  Baptism 
cannot  be  duly  appreciated  except  by  considering  it  under 
those  normal  conditions  where  it  acts  without  impediment. 
And  the  same  limitation  is  aj)plicable  in  the  case  of  the  Holy 
Eucharist. 

The  system  of  Calvin,  then,  was  built  upon  a  denial  of 
the  coherence  between  the  sacramentum  and  the  res  sacra- 
menti.  And  hence  he  was  compelled  to  rest  the  presence  of 
the  virtus  sacramenti  upon  the  absolute  decree  of  Almighty 
God,  because  he  was  unable  to  ground  it  upon  the  actual 
presence  of  Our  Lord's  Humanity.  So  that  as  Zuinglius 
allowed   only  a   Symbolical  Presence,  because  he   admitted    of 

^  De  Lugo  says,  "De  Baptismo  videtur  omnino  concedendum,  ablata 
fictione,  seu  obice,  conferre  suum  eS'ectum." — De  Sacramentis,  Dis.  ix. 
sec.  iii.  He  quotes  S.  Aug.  de  Baptismo  con.  Donatistas,  i.  12,  iii.  13, 
vi.  5. 


104  THE  RELATION  BETWEEN 

nothing   but    a    sacramentum,   or   external   symbol,   f=o   Calvin 
may  be    said   to    have    held   only   a  Virttial  Presence,  because 
he    detached   the    virtus    sacramenti,   or   effect,    from   the    res 
sacramenti,  or  cause.     Whereas,  of  course,  the  Jieal  Presence 
is  that  which  gives  its  due   place  to  the   res   sacramenti,  or 
thing  signified.     It  was  stated  how  incompatible  was  Calvin's 
system  with  the  very  purpose  of  a  Sacrament,  which  requires 
not  only  the    existence   of  an   outward   and   an  inward  part, 
but  also   that   they  should  be  truly  joined  together.     It  has 
been    shown   furthex',   that   it   cannot   be   maintained   without 
involving  that  dogma  of  ab^lute  reprobation,  which  is  incon- 
sistent  with   the    character   of   God,   and    which    renders    the 
y^  statements  of  Scripture  a  nullity  and  a  fiction.     To  represent 
r         the  Almighty  as  pubHcly  granting  a  charter  to  mankind   at 
tA^    l^ig^j   which    He   privately   annuls  by  a   secret   article,  is   to 
^^  *|     attribute   conduct  to   the  God  of  truth,  which  would  be  dis- 
I O-*^  creditable   to  an  earthly  sovereign.     And  such  a   supposition 
is   utterly   overthrown   by  the    manner  in   which   the  Church 
has  always  administered  the  Holy  Eucharist.    Her  immemorial 
custom  has  been  to  testify  to  each  receiver  of  the  consecrated 
elements,  that   the  thing  delivered  to  him  is  truly  that  life- 
giving  Body,  which  Calvin    supposed  to  be   restricted  to  the 
elect ;    and  to  call  upon  the  receiver  to   witness  his  belief  by 
saying  Amen  to  her  words. 

Whatever  variety  there  may  have  been  at  different  times 
in  the  words  employed  at  the  distribution  of  the  elements, 
the  gi'eatest  care  was  always  used  to  secure  that  which  the 
Bishops  at  the  Savoy  Conference  speak  of  as  the  jDroperty 
of  Sacraments,  "  to  make  i^articular  obsignation  to  each  be- 
liever." A  specific  direction  on  the  subject  occurs  in  the 
Apostolical  Constitutions:  "Let  the  Bishop  deliver  the  obla- 
tion, saying,  The  Bodij  of  Christ,  and  let  the  worshipper  say, 
Am,en.  Let  the  Deacon  hold  the  cup,  and  when  he  gives  it, 
let  him  say,  Tlve  Blood  of  Christ,  the  Cup  of  life  ;  and  let  him 
who  drinks  say,  Amen." '  The  response  is  referred  to  as  early 
^  Constit.  Apost.  lib.  viii.  c.  13. 


THE   GIFT  AND  THE   ELEMENTS.  105 

as  the  time  of  Tertullian/  and  is  thus  explained  in  the  work 
on  Sacraments  ascribed  to  St.  Ambrose :  "  The  Priest  says 
to  you  The  Body  of  Christ,  and  you  say  Amen,  it  is  true."^ 
To  the  same  custom  does  St.  Leo  witness:  "You  ought  so 
to  partake  of  the  sacred  table  as  not  to  doubt  about  the 
truth  of  Our  Lord's  Body  and  Blood.  For  that  which  is  an 
object  of  our  faith  is  the  thing  which  our  mouths  receive ; 
and  it  would  be  vain  for  those  to  answer  Amen,  who  dispute 
against  that  which  they  receive."  ^  The  practice  is  further 
attested  by  all  the  Eastern*  Liturgies,  in  which  the  response 
of  the  worshippers  assumes  often  a  most  striking  and  emphatic 
foiTQ. 

The  system  of  Calvin  agrees  as  little  with  these  forms  as  it 
does  with  Holy  Scripture.  Their  purpose  is  to  assure  each  indi- 
vidual, that  the  general  blessing  which  God  bestows  in  the  Holy 
Eucharist  is  offei'ed  to  his  separate  acceptance.  His  theory  was, 
that  nothing  is  really  communicated  in  the  act  of  administration, 
and  that  the  consecrated  elements  are  only  a  pledge  or  token  of 
that  which  it  is  God's  pleasure  to  do  irrespectively  of  them  in  the 
souls  of  His  elect.  Indeed,  the  radical  diversity  between  this 
system  and  the  ritual  of  the  Church  is  shown  by  the  antipathy 
ever  manifested  to  it  by  the  partizans  of  Calvin.  The  service 
for  the  Palatinate,  previously  quoted,  contemplates  no  special 
application  of  the  gift  of  Christ  to  every  individual.  "  The 
minister,"  it  is  said,  "  shall  break  the  bread  of  the  Lord  for  each 
person,  and  when  he  gives  it  him  shall  say.  The  bread  which  we 
break  is  the  communion  of  the  Body  of  Christ."  ^  This  text  is 
merely  the  expression  of  a  general  truth,  but  not  the  consignation 
of  it  to  individual  participants.  And  the  same  tendency  is 
shown  by  the  demand  of  the  Nonconformists  at  the  Savoy  Con- 

^  De  Spectaculis,  sec.  xxv. 

2  De  Sacramentis,  iv.  5.  Vide  S.  Aug.  Serin.  272,  and  S.  Perpetua. 
Ruinart,  p.  95. 

3  S.  Leo,  Sermo  89,  sec.  iii.  p.  175. 

*  Vide  Coptic  Liturgy  of  S.  Basil. — Eenaudot,  vol.  i.  p.  23.  And  the 
Greek,  Id.  vol.  i.  p.  83. 

■^  Chur-Pfalzische  Kirchen-Ordnung,  A.D.  1611. 


106  THE  RELATION  BETWEEN 

ference,  "  that  the  minister  be  not  required  to  deliver  the  1)read 
and  wine  into  every  particular  communicant's  hand,  and  to  repeat 
the  Avords  to  each  one  in  the  singular  number,  but  that  it  may- 
suffice  to  speak  them  to  divers  jointly,  according  to  Our  Saviour's 
example."  '  It  is  clear  that  the  efifect  of  this  change,  which  was 
happily  resisted  by  the  Bishops,  would  have  been  to  countenance 
the  system  of  Calvin ;  for  it  would  have  abandoned  that  distinct 
protest  against  any  separation  of  the  outward  and  inward  por- 
tions of  the  Sacrament  which  the  Church  lias  embodied  in 
her  ancient  form  of  distribution.  And  the  wish  of  those  who 
adopted  Calvin's  theory,  to  avoid  the  repetition  of  these  emphatic 
words  to  each  individual,  shows  their  instinctive  consciousness  of 
the  tendency  of  sucli  an  innovation. 

We  have  seen,  then,  what  are  the  four  perversions  to  which 
the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  especially  liable.  They  all 
arise  out  of  inadequate  conceptions  respecting  the  relation 
between  the  sacramentnm,  and  res  sacramenti — the  Subject,  that 
is,  and  the  Predicate  in  Our  Lord's  words  of  Institution.  For 
when  the  nature  of  these  two  terms  is  not  appreciated,  or  when 
men  deny  the  sacramental  identity  which  obtains  between  them, 
the  idea  of  a  sacrament  is  nullified.  To  supjiose  with  Zuinglius 
that  Christ  is  not  really  jiresent,  is  to  exclude  the  inward  part  or 
tiling  signified.  To  suppose,  as  the  Capernaites  did,  that  Our 
Lord's  Body  is  designed  to  be  present  as  an  object  to  the  senses, 
is  to  omit  the  notion  of  an  outward  form ;  even  though  it  should 
be  believed,  as  it  was  apparently  by  Aiiastasius  Sinaita,  that  the 
operation  of  men's  senses  is  supernaturally  obstructed.  But 
again,  it  is  not  more  necessary  that  the  two  portions  should  exist 
than  that  they  should  really  be  joined  together,  yet  discriminated 
from  one  another.  So  that  to  confound  their  office  as  Luther 
did,  or  separate  their  action  with  Calvin,  is  to  overthrow  the 
idea  of  their  sacramental  union.  For  this  union  implies  that 
the  inward  pai't  should  truly  act  through  the  outward  ;  and  thus 
that  their  presence  and  influence  should  be  that  of  one  real 
though  heterogeneous  whole. 

'  Cardwell's  Hist,  of  Conferences,  p.  321. 


THE  GIFT   AND  THE   ELEMENTS.  107 

Such,  then,  is  the  relation  between  the  outward  part  and  the 
inward  part,  the  Body  of  Christ  and  the  consecrated  elements, 
which  has  been  described  as  sacramental  identity.  It  implies 
that  the  res  sacramenti,  or  inward  reality,  is  so  united  to  the 
sacramentum,  or  outward  sign,  that  the  last  is  the  medium 
through  which  the  first  is  communicated.  This  is  the  same 
thing  as  to  aflfirm  that  the  Real  Presence  of  Christ  is  bestowed 
through  the  consecrated -elements.  And  it  may  be  observed  in 
conclusion,  that  this  term  of  a  Real  Presence  embraces,  in  fact, 
every  kind  of  Presence  except  those  two — Symbolical  and  Virtual 
— which  have  been  shown  to  belong  to  the  theories  of  Zuinglius 
and  Calvin.  For  the  notion  of  Luther,  and  even  that  of  the 
Capernaites,  were  partial  or  perverted  forms  under  which  the 
doctrine  of  a  Peal  Presence  was  expressed.  And  the  notion  of 
the  Capernaites  is  so  alien  to  the  very  nature  of  a  sacrament  that 
it  falls  to  the  ground  as  soon  as  it  is  stated  ;  while  that  of  Luther 
is  so  partial  and  self-contradictory  that  it  has  found  few  genuine 
supporters.  In  proceeding  further  therefore  into  the  subject,  it 
will  be  the  notions  of  a  mere  Symbolical,  or  of  a  mere  Virttial 
Presence,  which  it  will  be  needful  to  refute  :  that  of  a  Eeal  Pre- 
sence which  it  will  be  needful  to  establish.  This  shall  be  done 
by  appealing  to  the  testimony  of  Scripture  and  Antiquity 
against  the  two  first,  and  in  favour  of  the  latter.  But  it  will  be 
necessary  previously  to  inquire  somewhat  further  into  the 
nature  of  that  Presence  of  Christ  which  it  is  proposed  to 
maintain. 


108 


CHAPTER  YI. 

OUR   lord's  presence   in   the   holy   EUCHARIST   IS   REA.L,    AND 
NOT    MERELY    SYMBOLICAL    OR   VIRTUAL. 

It  was  affirmed  at  the  close  of  the  last  Chapter  that  Our  Lord's 
px'esence  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  was  not  symbolical  merely,  or 
virtual,  but  real.  I  proceed  to  inquire  fuither  into  the  meaning 
of  this  assertion :  but,  before  douig  so,  it  Avill  be  necessary  to 
notice  some  other  conditions  of  this  sacred  presence,  by  which  its 
reality  is  at  once  defined  and  substantiated.  Such  are  the  state- 
ments that  Our  Lord's  presence  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  super- 
natural, and  not  natural;  that  it  is  sacramental,  and  not  sensible. 
These  lead  to  the  further  assertion  that  it  is  real,  and  not  merely 
symbolical  or  virtual. 

Eirst — To  say  that  Our  Lord's  presence  in  the  Holy  Eucharist 
is  supernatural  is  to  affirm  that  while  His  Humanity  has  a  pre- 
sence which,  except  when  He  wills  it  otherwise,  is  accordant  to 
the  laws  of  material  existence,  it  has  also  a  presence  of  another 
sort,  which  is  independent  of  those  laws.  The  word  material  is 
used  hei'e  as  apjilicable  to  those  things  of  which  the  senses  are 
able,  or  fitted,  to  take  cognizance.  Some  material  objects, 
indeed,  may  be  of  so  subtile  a  nature  as  more  or  less  to  elude  our 
senses,  as  is  the  case  with  various  chemical  agents,  till  they  are 
detected  by  experiment ;  but  we  mean  by  material,  those  things 
which  the  senses  either  discern,  or  might  discern,  consistently 
with  their  present  character.^  Now  Our  Lord's  Human  Body 
is  not  subject  to  the  laws  of  material  existence,  because  His  Body 
is  a  glorified  Body,  and  therefore  not  an  object  to  our  senses,  un- 
less such  be  His  own  will.  That  we  do  not  commonly  discern  it 
is  not  owing,  surely,  to  distance  of  place,  but  to  the  fact  that 
glorified  beings  camiot  be  discerned  by  those  who  are  in  our  pre- 

'  Vide  Doct.  of  the  Incarnation,  cap.  x.  2,  and  additional  note. 


CHRIST'S   PRESENCE    SUPERNATURAL.  109 

sent  state,  except  at  their  own  pleasure,  "When  Our  Lord  was 
upon  earth,  after  His  resurrection.  He  was  not  always  visible  to 
His  disciples.  But  that  His  presence,  when  He  was  pleased  to 
vouchsafe  it,  was  according  to  the  laws  of  material  existence  we 
know  fi'om  His  own  declaration :  "  Handle  Me  and  see,  for  a 
spirit  hath  not  flesh  and  bones,  as  ye  see  Me  have."  And  with 
this  Body  did  He  enter  into  that  heavenly  state  in  which  He  will 
continue  till  the  end  of  all  things. 

Now  the  natural  conditions  even  of  a  glorified  body — the  con- 
ditions, that  is,  which  pertain  to  it  by  reason  of  its  material  cha- 
racter and  human  existence — are,  that  it  is  present  under  a 
definite  form,  and  in  a  definite  place.  So  we  learn  from  the 
statements  of  Scripture  and  of  the  Church.  Our  Lord  "  shall  so 
come,  as  ye  have  seen  Him  go  into  heaven."  "The  heavens  must 
receive "  Him,  "  until  the  restitution  of  all  things."  "  He  as- 
cended into  heaven,"  says  the  Apostles'  Creed.  And  this  truth 
is  recognized  in  various  places  by  the  Fathers.  So  distinct  are 
the  statements  of  St.  Augustin,  especially  in  His  Epistle  to 
Dardanus,^  as  well  of  his  countryman  Pulgentius,^  that  when 
they  were  brought  forward  by  (Ecolampadius,  at  the  conference 
at  Marburg,  as  arguments  against  the  ubiquity  of  Our  Lord's 
Human  Body,  Luther  could  only  reply,  "  You  have  Augustin 
and  Fulgentius  on  your  side  ;  but  we  have  all  the  other  Fathers 
on  ours."  ^  But  these  statements,  though  more  pointed,  are  not 
really  more  conclusive  than  those  of  other  writers,  both  in  the 
Western  and  Eastern  Church.  * 

Now,  if  Our  Lord  were  a  mere  °  man,  and  had  no  mode  of 
presence,  except  that  wliich  is  accordant  to  the  laws  of  material 
existence,  it  follows  that  He  could  not  be  present  excejDt  in  the 

1  Epis.  187.  10.    Vide  S.  Aug.  in  Joan.  Trac.  50.  13. 

~  Ad  Tras.  17,  Bib.  Pat.  ix.  55.  ^  jjosp.  vol.  ii.  p.  126. 

"  Vide  Doct.  of  the  Inc.  p.  548,  Ed.  3rd ;  p.  449,  Ed.  4tli. 

''  Vide  S.  Cyril  in  Joan.  cap.  vi.  verse  64,  vol.  iv.  p.  377.  To  this  dis- 
tinction S.  Jerome  refers,  when  he  says,  "  dupliciter  Christi  caro  intelligi- 
tur ;  vel  spiritualis  ilia  atque  divina  ....  vel  caro  quae  crucifixa  est,"  &c. 
He  is  discriminating  Christ's  suj^ernatuml  from  His  natural  presence.  Ad 
Eph.  cap.  i.  vol.  iv.  part  i.  p.  328. 


110  CHRIST'S  PRESENCE 

place  wliich  He  possesses  in  lieaven.  Any  other  mode  of  pre- 
sence, which  can  be  attributed  to  His  human  nature,  must 
belong  to  it  by  reason  of  some  peculiar  privilege  with  which 
it  is  invested.  And  that  His  Humanity  was  likely  to  be  in- 
vested with  some  peculiar  privileges  of  this  sort,  we  should 
gather  from  His  own  words  both  before  and  after  His  resurrec- 
tion. This  is  surely  the  fullest  sense  of  those  expressions  in 
which  He  speaks  of  Himself  as  about  to  come  again,  and  of  the 
perpetual  presence  which  He  pledged  to  His  disciples.^  These 
things  could  not  refer  to  His  Godhead,  which  must  always 
have  j)ervaded  both  time  and  place  by  its  unalterable  presence. 

We  know,  then,  that  after  His  resurrection  (to  say  nothing 
of  its  previous  capacities)  Our  Lord's  Body  existed  under  condi- 
tions very  different  from  those  which  are  usual  to  men.  "  That 
was  brought  to  pass  respecting  Our  Lord's  Body  which  is  impos- 
sible even  to  the  glance  of  our  sight — He  conveyed  it  through  a 
closed  barrier.  For  after  His  resurrection,  when  His  disciples 
were  gathered  together  in  one  place.  He  suddenly  appeared,  the 
doors  being  shut.  Where  our  sight  could  not  penetrate.  His 
Body  entered."  '^  Now,  it  is  by  virtue  of  those  new  qualities 
which  Our  Lord's  Humanity  has  gained  by  oneness  with  Deity 
that  it  exists  under  those  conditions  in  which  it  is  given  to  men 
in  the  Holy  Eucharist.  "He  is  the  living  bread,"  says  St. 
Augustin,  referring  to  St.  John  vi.  51,  "because,"  as  He  says, 
"  I  came  down  from  heaven."  '  And  so  St.  Hilary:  "  that  Flesh, 
i.e.  that  bread,  is  from  heaven;  and  that  Man  is  from  God."* 
And  St.  Ambrose  in  like  manner  rests  the  efficacy  of  the 
Eucharist  on  the  truth  of  the  Incaraation :  "  Why  do  you  ask 
for  the  order  of  nature  in  Christ's  Body  ;  inasmuch  as  Our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  Himself  was  born  of  a  virgin,  contrary  to  nature  ? 

1  Vide  St.  John  xiv.  18,  28.     St.  Matt,  xxviii.  20. 

*  S.  August.  Senno  '277,  sec.  xii.  vol.  v.  p.  1119.  "Palpandam  camem 
praebuit,  (juam  clausis  januis  introduxit  .  .  .  .  ut  profecto  esse  post  resur- 
rectionein  ostenderet  corpus  suum  et  ejuxdem  iiatiir.r,  et  ultiriiis  glorix." 
— <S.  Greg.  Mag.  in  Ev.  L.  ii.  Houi.  2(5,  vol.  i.  p.  1553. 

^  S.  August,  in  Joan.  Tract,  xxvi.  13. 

■»  De  Trinitate,  x.  23,  p.  1051. 


SUPEENATURAL,  NOT   NATURAL.  Ill 

It  was  truly  the  Flesh  of  Christ  which  was  crucified  and  buried  ; 
and  therefore  it  is  truly  the  sacrament  of  His  Flesh."  ^  This 
is  a  main  part  of  St.  Cyril's  arguments  against  Nestorius.  Our 
Lord's  Humanity,  he  says,  could  not  be  that  of  a  mere  man,  as 
Nestorius  asserted,  because  if  so,  how  could  it  be  given  to  man- 
kind as  the  principle  of  life,  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  ?  Now  this 
assumes  as  its  basis,  that  thei-e  is  a  peculiar  presence  of  Our 
Lord's  Humanity  in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  the  possibility  and 
fruitfulness  of  which  depend  upon  those  new  qualities,  with 
which  manhood  is  invested  by  its  union  with  Deity.  "  If 
Nestorius,"  he  says,  "  affirms  that  He  who  has  appeared  is 
some  other  Son  and  Christ,  and  not  God  the  Word,  .  .  .  does  he 
not  render  our  mystery  to  be  the  mere  eating  of  a  man's  flesh  ?"^ 
Again,  he  asks,  "  Who  was  He  that  saith,  He  that  eateth  My 
Flesh,  and  drinketh  My  Blood,  dwelleth  in  Me,  and  I  in  him  ?  If 
He  had  been  some  mere  man,  and  had  it  not  been  the  very  Word 
of  Grod,  which  had  been  manifest  in  our  nature,  such  an  act 
would  be  the  mere  eating  of  a  man's  flesh,  and  the  participation 
would  be  wholly  unprofitable.  For  Christ  Himself  says,  '  The 
flesh  profiteth  nothing.  It  is  the  Spirit  which  profiteth.'  For 
as  regards  its  own  nature,  flesh  is  corruptible.  It  cannot 
quicken  others,  being  corruptible  itself."  ^  So  that  he  infers  that 
the  Being  from  whom  flesh  draws  such  quickening  qualities 
must  be  "the  very  Word  of  God."  For  tliis  it  is  which  has 
bestowed  new  gifts  upon  humanity,  through  the  operation  of  the 
Holy  Ghost. 

All  these,  and  numberless  other  passages  which  might  be 
quoted,  proceed  on  the  supposition,  that  by  virtue  of  that  union 
with  Godhead,  to  wliich  manhood  was  exalted  by  the  agency  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  Our  Lord's  Humanity  possesses  a  character 
peculiar  to  itself,  and  that  this  circumstance  renders  it  "  the  Bread 
of  life." 

^  S.  Ambros.  de  Mysteriis,  ix.  53. 

^  S.  Cyril.  Apol.  adv.  Orient,  vol.  vi.  p.  193.  The  same  argument  is 
used  against  the  Nestorians  by  Leontius.  "  Qui  htee  sentiunt,  cujus  corpus 
et  sanguinem  se  putant  in  communione  sumere  ?  " — Bih.  Fatr.  ix.  704. 

^  Adv.  Nestorium,  iv.  5,  vol.  vi.  p.  109. 


112  CHRIST'S   PRESENCE 

It  is  true  that  the  majority  of  these  statements  refer  directly 
to  those  life-fjiving  qualities  of  which  Our  Lord's  Body  is  pos- 
sessed ;  but  indirectly  tliey  witness  also  to  that  supernatural 
presence  through  which  His  influence  is  exerted.  And  both  of 
these  circumstances  they  attribute  to  that  fact  of  the  Incarnation, 
whereby  "  in  Christ's  Person,  Godhead  and  ^Manhood  were  com- 
mingled." ^  For  even  before  Our  Lord's  Bod}'  was  bestowed  in 
the  Holy  Eucharist,  it  was  that  present  temjile  of  God's  Spirit, 
by  means  of  wliich  it  could  be  said  to  the  disciples,  "  He  dwelleth 
with  you,  and  shall  be  in  you."  And  it  was  "through  the 
Holy  Ghost "  that  Our  Lord  before  the  Day  of  Pentecost  "  gave 
commandments  unto  the  Apostles."  This  was  the  prerogative 
which  attached  to  His  human  nature,  because  "  in  Him  dwelt 
all  the  Godhead  bodily;"  and  with  it  came  those  other  marvel- 
lous endowments  which  the  Gospel  history  records. 

AVe  find  many  statements,  therefore,  that  Our  Lord's  Human 
Body  was,  in  various  respects,  exempted  from  those  laws  by 
which  humanity  is_commonly  restricted.  This  was  true  both 
before  and  after  His  resurrection ;  ijie  difference  was  that  before 
His  resurrection  it  was  the  exception  when  He  was  exempted 
from  the  laws  of  nature ;  that  He  should  not  be  exempted  from 
them  is  the  exception  since  His  resurrection.  And  the  reason 
is,  that  "  the  Flesh  of  Our  Lord  is  a  life-giving  Spirit,  because  it 
was  conceived  of  the  life-giving  Spirit.  For  that  which  is  bom 
of  the  Spirit  is  Spirit." '"  "  He  had  a  Body,"  says  St.  Hilary, 
"  but  one  peculiar  to  its  origin  ;  ^  not  owing  its  existence  to  the 
faults  of  human  conception,  but  subsisting,  m  the  form  of  our 
bodies,  through  the  power  of  His  own  virtue."  And  St.  Cyril : 
"  If  the  meat  be  Christ's  Body,  and  the  drink  be  Christ's  Blood, 
and  yet,  as  the  Nestorians  say,  He  is  a  mere  man,  how  can  He 

1  S.  Aug.  Ep.  137.  11. 

*  S.  Athanafiius  de  Incam.  et  contra  Arian.  xvi.  p.  888.  "The  word 
'  Spirit,'  in  the  new  birth  is  not  opposed  to  all  flesli,  but  is  identical  with 
the  Flesh  of  Christ." — Palmer's  Dissertations  on  the  Eastern  Cath.  Com- 
ntuiiiou,  p.  '219. 

^  Or  perhaps,  "  which  contained  in  itself  the  principle  of  its  origin." — 
De  Trinitate,  x.  25,  p.  1053. 


SUPERNATURAL,    NOT    NATURAL.  113 

be  proclaimed  to  be  for  eternal  life  to  those  who  come  to  the 
sacred  board ;  how  can  He  be  divided  there  and  everywhere, 
and  yet  never  diminished  ?  For  a  mere  body  can  never  be  the 
fountain  of  life  to  those  who  partake  it."  ^ 

Now  it  cannot  be  justly  objected  to  such  statements,  that  they 
attribute  powers  to  Our  Lord's  Body  which  detract  from  the 
truth  of  His  Manhood,  and  assign  to  it  conditions  which  belong 
to  Deity  alone.  That  which  is  characteristic  of  Deity  is  not 
merely  the  capacity  of  evincing  its  power  simultaneously  in 
various  places,  for  this  belongs  even  to  the  human  soul,  which 
acts  at  once  in  all  members  of  the  body,^  but  that  attribute  of 
necessary  omnipresence,  which  is  inseparable  from  the  omnipo- 
tence of  God,  As  it  belongs  to  the  idea  of  the  Supreme  Being, 
that  it  is  impossible  to  restrict  a  dominion  which  knows  no  condi- 
tions except  those  which  are  inherent  in  itself,  so  is  it  involved 
in  the  same  conception,  that  He  can  neither  be  limited  by  dura- 
tion, nor  bounded  by  space.  It  is  thus  that  we  must  discriminate 
the  Infinite  from  the  finite,  the  Creator  from  His  works.  It  is 
.  no  interference  therefore  with  the  inalienable  prerogatives  of 
;  Deity,  to  sujopose  that  capacities  of  presence,  far  exceeding  the 
j  ordinary  conditions  of  nature,  as  well  as  other  unusual  gifts, 
■  should  be  bestowed  upon  a  created  substance.  And  on  what  of 
all  created  substances  should  they  be  bestowed  so  suitably,  as  on 
that  Humanity  which  by  personal  union  was  one  with  God  ? 
Was  it  not  the  very  principle  of  the  Incarnation  that  the  Infinite 
and  the  finite  were  brought  face  to  face  in  the  Person  of  Christ  ? 
It  must  be  remembered  only  that  whereas  such  capacities  belong 
to  Godhead  by  the  necessity  of  its  nature,  they  belong  to  man- 
hood accidentally  only,  and  by  gift. 

In  this  consideration  lies  the  safeguard  against  that  error 
of  ubiquity  which  at  times  was  advocated  by  Luther.  Our 
Lord's    Manhood   neither   did,   nor   could,   participate  in   that 

^  Lege  /xepi^fTai  iravTaxov. — Horn,  in  Myst.  Ccenam,  vol.  v.  part  ii. 
p.  378. 

^  Or  even  beyond  it  perhaps;  for,  "anima  magis  est  ubi  amat,  quam 
ubi  animat." 


[/ 


114  CHRIST'S  PRESENCE 

Omnipresence,  which  is  characteristic  of  Godhead ;  but  He 
has  been  jileased  to  bestow  upon  it  a  certain  capacity  of 
presence  beyond  that  which  other  bodies  possess,  that  it  may 
be  the  instrument  of  His  own  gracious  will.  Some  of  Luther's' 
expressions  would  lead  to  the  notion  that  Our  Lord's  two 
natures  were  confused  together,  just  as  Luther  confounded 
the  offices  of  the  outward  and  inward  parts  in  the  Holy 
Eucharist ;  whereas  it  has  been  truly  observed  that  "  the 
nature  of  the  Word  became  Incarnate  through  His  Person, 
not  His  Person  through  His  nature."^  He  did  not  enter 
into  relation  with  humanity  by  mingling  Deitj^  with  it,  but 
He  brought  it  into  relation  to  Godhead  by  uniting  it  per- 
sonally to  Himself.  And  therefore  whatever  gifts  have  been 
bestowed  ujion  His  man's  nature,  though  they  have  been 
bestowed  upon  it  as  a  result  of  that  exaltation  which  accrued 
to  it  through  the  being  taken  into  God,  yet  they  have  come 
as  a  special  endowment,  and  by  peculiar  favour. 

Although  we  meet  therefore  with  statements  that  "  the 
Body  or  Flesh  of  Our  Lord  has  by  jiersoual  oneness  become 
God,  without  losing  its  original  nature,"  ^  and  that  Our  Lord 
consisted  of  two  contraries,  flesh  and  spirit,  of  which  the  one 
conferred,  the  other  received  deification,"  *  yet  they  are  always 
qualified  by  the  statement  that  it  is  the  Divine  nature  which 
gives  the  flesh  its  efficacy,  and  that  whatever  of  power  or 
special  presence  the  flesh  possesses,  is  derived  from  the  im- 
mediate appointment  of  Him  who  has  taken  it  into  Himself. 

^  As  when  he  approves  the  words,  "  es  ist  alles  fol  leib  Cliristi." — Uos- 
pinian,  ii.  126.  Luther's  first  work,  which  asserted  the  doctrine  of  Ubi- 
quity, was  his  Treatise  against  the  Sacramentaries,  A.D.  1527.  Vide 
JIdiipiman,  ii.  p.  79.  He  repeated  his  statements  the  next  year  in  his 
Confessio  Major.  He  affirmed  that  "nullibi  sit,  vel  esse  possit  Divinitas, 
ubi  etiam  non  simul  realiter  adsit,  sive  coexistat,  assumpta  Humanitas." 
— JIospitiidH,  ii.  p.  86. 

*  "  Non  Deus  Verbum  [per]  divinam  naturam  ;  sed  divina  natura  per 
Dei  Verbi  personam,  unita  dioitur  carni." — Itusticus  contra  Acephalos. 
Bih.  rat.  Mux.  x.  366  ;  and  vide  p.  359. 

^  Damascenus  de  Imaginibus,  i.  16,  19. 

"  S.  Greg.  Naz.  Or.  42,  vol.  i.  p.  682.  (Par.  1630.)  Vide  also  S.  Greg, 
Nyssen.  Cat.  Orat.  37,  vol.  iii.  p.  105. 


SACEAMENTAL,  NOT  SENSIBLE.  115 

"  The  nature  of  the  flesh,  considered  in  itself,  could  not  confer 
life.  Since  otherwise  what  would  be  the  superiority  of  the 
Divine  nature  ?  So  that  even  in  Christ  the  flesh  is  not  to 
be  thought  of  alone,  and  by  itself.  Eor  it  has  that  "Word, 
who  is  naturally  life,  united  to  it.  When  Christ  calls  it 
life-giving,  therefore,  it  is  not  to  it  that  He  ascribes  this 
power,  but  rather  to  Himself,  or  to  His  own  Spirit.  For 
it  is  through  Himself  that  His  own  Body  is  life-giving."  ^ 
And  on  this  account  it  is  that  Our  Lord's  life-giving  presence 
in  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  properly  described  as  supernatural. 
If  it  were  His  Godhead  only  which  was  bestowed  in  this 
sacrament,  such  presence  and  such  mode  of  action  would  be 
exactly  consonant  to  the  laws  of  its  nature.  But  since  it  is 
His  Manhood  to  which  these  acts  are  ascribed,  since  they 
are  attributed  to  a  nature  which  is  common  to  ourselves,  and 
to  which  such  powers  are  foreign,  it  is  plain  that  they  can 
belong  to  it  only  in  a  manner  which  is  supernatural.  So 
that  the  natural  presence  of  Our  Lord's  Humanity  is  in 
heaven,  subject  to  the  conditions  of  place  and  form  which 
are  characteristic  of  other  human  bodies.  But  the  presence 
of  His  Humanity  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  not  accordant 
with  the  ordinary  conditions  which  belong  to  man's  nature. 
He  brings  it  about  through  that  union  which  has  taken 
place  in  His  person  between  manhood  and  Deity — it  is  peculiar 
and  supernatural. 

II.  The  second  assertion  was,  that  Our  Lord's  Presence 
in  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  sacramental,  and  not  sensible.  This 
is  a  consequence  from  the  fact  stated  in  the  last  Chapter, 
that  the  Subject  and  Predicate  in  Our  Lord's  words  of  In- 
stitution were  united  together  by  a  sacramental  identity.  For 
this  was  shown  to  imply  that  the  Holy  Eucharist  consisted 
of  two  parts,  a  sacramentum  and  a  res  sacramenti — the  first  an 
object  to  the  senses,  the  second  an  object  only  to  faith  and 
to  the  mind.  And  further,  it  was  shown  to  be  the  purpose 
of  consecration  to  unite  these  two  together,  so  that  they 
^  S.  Cyril  in  Joan.  lib.  iv.  3,  vol.  iv.  p.  377. 
I  2 


116  CHRIST'S  PRESENCE   REAL, 

might  have  that  peculiar  relation  to  one  another  which  be- 
longs to  this  sacrament.  Now,  if  these  truths  are  admitted, 
it  would  be  a  contradiction  to  suppose  either  that  the  res 
sacramenti,  or  Body  of  Christ,  coukl  be  an  object  to  the 
senses,  or  that  it  could  fail  to  maintain  that  relation  to  the 
sacramentum,  or  external  part,  through  which  the  purpose 
of  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  effected.  So  that  Christ's  Presence 
in  this  ordinance  cannot  be  sensible,  and  must  be  sacramental. 

And  this  fact  supplies  an  easy  solution  of  some  difficulties 
which  may  arise  in  respect  to  the  Holy  Eucliarist.  It  is 
asked,  for  instance,  whether  Our  Lord  is  present  in  this 
ordinance  under  a  definite  form,  and  in  any  particular  place  : 
the  answer  is  found  at  once,  by  remembering  that  He  is 
pi'esent  saeramentalhj.  It  was  shown  under  the  last  head 
that  Our  Lord  is  present  in  heaven,  in  a  particular  place, 
and  under  an  especial  form ;  that  form,  namely,  under  which 
His  Apostles  beheld  Him,  and  that  place  to  which  they  saw 
Him  dej^art,  at  the  right  hand  of  God.  This  is  Our  Lord's 
natural  presence ;  in  which  He  is  a  fitting  object,  when  it 
pleases  Him,  to  the  senses  of  men.  In  this  form  He  showed 
himself  to  St.  Stephen  at  his  death,  to  St.  Paul  at  his  con- 
version, and  to  St.  John  in  his  exile.  But  Our  Lord's  pre- 
sence in  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  not  natural,  but  supernatural ; 
it  is  a  sacramental  presence — the  presence,  that  is,  of  a  res 
sacramenti,  which  is  not,  in  itself,  an  object  to  the  senses  of 
men.  We  have  no  reason  therefore  to  suppose  that  form 
and  outline  belong  to  it ;  because  these  are  the  conditions 
through  which  tilings  become  an  object  to  the  senses  of  men. 

And  yet  there  is  one  way  in  wliich  Our  Lord's  Body  may 
be  said  to  be  present  with  form  and  place  in  the  Holy 
Eucharist.  For  there  is  a  connexion  between  the  sacramentum 
and  res  sacramenti,  and  form  and  place  belong  to  the  first, 
though  they  do  not  belong  to  the  second.  So  that  though  the 
res  sacramenti,  in  itself,  has  neither  place  nor  form,  yet  it 
has  them  in  a  manner  through  the  sacramentum,  with  which 
it  iij    united.     Christ's   Body    therefore    may  be    said  to   have 


NOT   MERELY   SYMBOLICAL   OE   VIRTUAL.  117 

a  form  in  this  Sacrament,  namely,  the  form  of  the  elements, 
and  to  occupy  that  place  through  which  the  elements  extend. 
As  the  spirit  may  be  said  to  be  present  in  tJiat  place  where 
the  body  is  situated,  and  as  light  may  be  said  to  assume  the 
shape  of  the  orifice  through  which  it  passes,  so  it  may  be 
said  that  the  res  sacramenti  borrows  place  and  shape  from 
the  sacramentum,  with  which  it  is  united  by  consecration. 
AVhether  the  constituent  portions  of  light  liave  any  shape 
in  themselves,  and  what  is  meant  by  the  place  of  a  spirit, 
are  questions  which  philosophers  can  scarcely  settle ;  and 
in  like  manner  there  are  secrets  respecting  the  r-es  sacramenti, 
which  must  remain  hidden  from  divines.  But  the  effect  of 
consecration,  as  we  learn  from  revelation,  is  to  join  that  which 
is  outward  and  that  which  is  inward ;  so  that  Our  Lord's 
"  blessed  Body  and  Blood  "  is  communicated,  as  the  first  Book 
of  Homilies  expresses  it,  "  under  the  form  of  bread  and  wine." 

III.  And  now,  then,  we  may  come  to  the  third  assertion, 
that  Our  Lord's  Presence  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  real,  and  not 
merely  symbolical  or  virtual.  Such  is  the  necessary  consequence 
of  believing  not  only  in  a  sacramentum  .and  a  virtus  sacramenti, 
but  in  a  res  sacramenti  also.  If  the  Holy  Eucharist  were  nothing 
but  a  sacramentum  or  symbol,  as  .Zuinglius  maintained,  the 
utmost  which  could  be  affirmed  would  be,  that  Our  Lord's 
Presence  was  symbolical.  If,  as  Calvin  taught,  the  virtus 
sacramenti  was  all  which  was  to  be  added,  it  would  be  natural 
to  say  that  it  was  nothing  more  than  a  virtual  presence.  But  if 
a  res  sacramenti  be  adjnitted,  and  that  res  sacramenti  the  Body 
of  Christ,  it  is  impossible  to  deny  that  He  is  really  present.  And 
hence  it  must  be  supjDosed  that  such  was  the  truth,  which  oui' 
Catechism  was  designed  to  inculcate,  since  it  affirms  that  the 
inward  part,  or  thing  signified,  is  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ. 

And  as  this  circumstance  has  dictated  the  name,  so  does  it 
explain  the  nature  of  the  Real  Presence.  The  thing  designed  is 
to  affirm  that  Our  Lord's  Body,  which  is  the  res  sacramenti,  is 
tliejugtiument  through  which  those  purposes  are  effected  which 
the  Holy  Eucharist  is  intended  to  perform.    Not  that  a  spiritual 


118  CHRIST'S   PRESENCE  REAL, 

action  is  meant  to  be  excluded :  it  will  be  shown,  in  a  subsequent 
Chapter,  liow  the  Third  Person  in  the  Blessed  Trinity  co-oi^erates 
at  present  in  all  acts  of  mercy  with  God  the  Son,  in  whose 
Incarnation  He  was  fonnerly  an  agent.  But  besides  this  spiritual 
action,  and  independently  of  it,  the  agency  of  Our  Lord's  Body 
is  mercifully  employed,  as  being  the  res  sacramenti  in  the  Holy 
\  Eucharist. 
M,  This  is  a  truth  which  neither  Calvinists  nor  Zuinglians  can 
1  recognize.  For  their  systems  not  only  do  away  with  the  res 
sacramenti,  but  they  do  not  admit  that  supernatural  presence  of 
Christ  by  which  only  it  is  rendered  jiossible.  For  if  Our  Lord's 
Manhood  possessed  only  that  natural  presence  which  is  common 
to  Him  with  other  men.  His  Body  would  be  confined  to  that 
single  form,  and  that  individual  place,  which  He  occupies  in 
heaven.  And  therefore,  those  who  adopt  the  Calvinistic  or 
Zuiuglian  theories,  speak  of  Our  Lord's  manifold  j^resence  as  a 
contradiction  in  terms,  and  imiDossible.  No  doubt  it  would  be 
impossible  on  their  principles ;  but  not  on  the  principles  of  the 
ancient  Church.  It  is  no  contradiction  in  terms,  to  suppose  that 
though  Our  Lord's  natural  presence  is  limited  to  one  place,  yet 
that  such  limitation  does  not  apjily  to  a  presence  which  is  super- 
natural. Neither  is  it  reasonable  in  the  Calvinists  and  Zuinglians 
to  expect  that  the  consequences  of  their  definition  should  be 
accepted,  where  the  definition  itself  is  not  received. 

But  it  may  be  said,  why  is  not  the  belief  in  Our  Lord's  spiritual 
presence  as  God  sufficient  ?  what  necessity  is  there  for  admitting 
also  the  real  jDresence  of  His  Body  ?  Now  it  is  true  that  such  a 
supernatural  presence  of  Our  Lord's  Body  is  alien  from  the 
common  laws  of  material  action,  and  may  seem  almost  to  imply 
that  the  essence  of  a  body  is  identical  with  its  power.  So  that 
probably  it  would  not  be  wrong  to  P2)eak  of  Our  Lord's  presence 
in  the  Holy  Eucharist  as  resembling  a  dynamic,  rather  than  a 
natural  presence.     Yet  we  must  be  careful,  as  St.  Augustin ' 

'  It  may  Le  thought,  he  said,  tliat  those  who  rise  from  the  dead,  "  hoc 
ipsuin  (juod  corjius  est  per  ghiriam  resurrectiouis  amittere,  et  spiritum 
fieri."     i3ut  iu  this  case,  "metuendum  est  ne  nihil  aliud  dici  videatur, 


NOT  MERELY  SYMBOLICAL  OR  VIRTUAL.  119 

observes,  not  so  completely  to  identify  body  and  spirit  as  to  deny 
the  reality  of  either.  For  though  the  ultimate  cause  of  all 
things  be  an  Infinite  Mind,  yet  body  as  well  as  spirit  bears  some 
true  and  mysterious  part  in  the  economy  of  creation.  And  the 
words  of  Scripture  respecting  Our  Lord's  Body  must  not  be  so 
explained  as  to  be  rendered  nugatory.  "  This  is  My  Body,"  not 
the  power  or  efficacy  of  My  Body,  were  Our  Lord's  own  words. 
They  were  accepted  in  their  literal  sense  by  the  holy  Apostle. 
"  The  bread  which  we  break,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the 
Body  of  Christ  ?  "  And  he  speaks  of  "  not  discerning  the  Lord's 
Body."  And  in  the  same  manner  were  they  understood  by 
ancient  writers.  "  "We  ask,"  says  St.  Cyprian,  "  that  our  Bread, 
that  is,  Christ,  may  be  given  to  us  daily,  that  we  who  abide  and 
live  in  Christ  may  not  depart  from  His  sanctification  and  His 
Body."  ^  St.  Cyril,  in  a  passage  already  quoted,  speaks  of  the 
effect  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  to  be  that  Our  Lord  "  rendered  His 
Body  life-giving,  being  Himself,  as  God,  the  principle  of  life  by 
nature,  that  by  making  us  partakers  of  Himself,  not  only  in 
spirit,  but  in  body.  He  might  render  us  superior  to  corruption."  ^ 
And  again : 

"  The  Son  cometh  to  be  in  us,  bodily  as  man,  being  mingled 
and  united  with  us  by  the  mystical  Eucharist,  and  again 
spiritually  as  God,  re-creating  our  s|iix'its  to  newness  of  life, 
by  the  energy  and  grace  of  His  own  Spirit ;  and  making 
us  partakers  of  His  own  divine  nature.  Christ  thus  appears 
to  be  the  bond  of  union  between  us  and  God  the  Father,  joining 
us  to  Himself  as  man,  and  as  God  being  naturally  inherent  in 
the  Father.  For  there  was  no  other  way  in  which  the  nature, 
which  was  subject  to  corruption,  could  be  raised  to  incorruption, 
than  by  the  coming  down  into  it  of  that  nature  which  was 
superior  to  all  corruption  and  mutability ;  so  as  to  raise  up  to 
its  own  good  that  which  always  lay  depressed,  and  by  communion 

quam  corpora  non  ilia  mutatione  immortalia  mansura,  sed  nulla  potius 
futura  et  omnino  peritura." — Ep.  cxlvii.  51,  vol.  ii.  p.  494.  And  so  S. 
Gregory  the  Great:  "post  resurrectionem  corpus  suum  et  ejusdem  naturae 
et  alterius  glorice." — In  Evan.  II.  Horn.  xxvi.  1 ;  vol.  i.  p.  1553. 

^  De  Oratione  Dominica,  p.  192. 

*  Adversus  Nestorium,  iv.  5,  vol.  vi.  p.  113 ;  vide  sup.  cap.  iv.  p.  88. 


120  CHKISrs  PRESENCE  REAL, 

and  intermixture  with  itself,  almost  to  lift  it  out  of  those  limits 
which  pertain  to  created  nature,  by  transforming  to  itself  that 
which  has  no  such  native  power.  We  are  perfectly  changed 
therefore  into  oneness  with  God  and  the  Father,  because  Christ 
becomes  the  Mediator  between  us.  For  receiving  into  ourselves, 
both  by  the  way  of  body  and  by  the  way  of  spirit,  as  I  said  just 
now.  Him  who  is  natuially  and  tiuly  the  Son,  consubstantially 
united  to  the  Father,  we  have  the  glory  of  jjartaking  of  that 
nature  which  is  above  all  things." ' 

As  this  passage  discriminates  between  the  action  of  Our 
Lord's  Humanity  and  that  of  His  Godhead,  so  does  the  same 
writer,  in  an  adjoining  passage,  explain  the  principle  upon 
which  His  Humanity  acts.  "  That  we  might  attain  to  oneness 
with  God,  and  with  one  another,  and  might  be  joined  together, 
though  each  of  us  individualized  by  his  body  and  his  soul,  the 
Only-Begotten  Son  contrived  a  certain  scheme,  devised  by  His 
own  wisdom,  and  by  the  counsel  of  the  Father,  For  by 
bestowing  a  blessing  uj^on  all  those  who  believe,  through  one 
Body,  namely.  His  own,  by  means  of  the  mystical  reception.  He 
renders  them  concorporate  with  one  another,  and  with  Himself."'^ 
Nor  is  this  language  confined  to  St,  Cyril.  St.  Chrysostom 
speaks  of  it  as  the  effect  of  the  Holy  Eucharist,  "  that  we  may  not 
only  be  joined  in  Christ  by  love,  but  maj  be  united  in  reality  to 
His  Flesh.  And  this  is  brought  about  through  the  food  which 
He  has  given  us ;  for  wishing  to  show  the  desire  which  He  has 
for  us,  He  has  by  this  means  mixed  Himself  with  us,  and  united 
His  Body  to  us,  that  we  might  be  one,  as  a  body  united  to  its 
head."^  Now  these  passages  cannot  mean  that  Our  Lord  is  only 
an  object  to  men's  thoughts,  nor  yet  that  He  exercises  a  power 
which  can  be  detached  from  Himself;  they  imply  that  He 
is  present  through  His  own  essence.  And  since  essence  and 
substance  are  terms  which  in  their  derivation  are  nearly 
identical,  therefore  various  ancient  writers  have  expressed  this 

'  In  Joan.  lib.  xi.  12,  vol.  iv.  p.  1002. 
-  S.  Cyril  in  Joan.  lib.  xi.  11,  vol  iv.  p.  998. 

^  S.  Chrysostom  in  Joan.  Horn.  xlvi.  3,  vol.  viii.  p.  272.  Vide  also 
Horn,  xlvii.  i.  p.  275. 


NOT  MERELY  SYMBOLICAL  OE  VIRTUAL.  121 

truth  by  saying,  that  Our  Lord  is  Substantially  present.  "  That 
living  bread,  which  descends  from  heaven,"  says  St.  Ambrose, 
"  ministers  to  us  the  substance  of  eternal  life ;  and  whosoever 
eats  of  this  bread  shall  not  die  eternally,  and  it  is  the  Body  of 
Christ."  ^  And  again,  St.  Caesarius :  "  The  invisible  priest  con- 
verts visible  creatures  into  the  substance  of  His  own  Body  and 
Blood,  by  the  secret  power  of  His  own  word,  saying,  '  Take,  eat, 
this  is  My  Body.'"'^ 

But  then  it  is  said  this  doctrine  of  a  Real  Presence  is  so 
strange  and  unnatural  that  its  acceptance  is  impossible.  This 
objection  was  answered  in  the  fourth  Chapter,  where  it  was 
shown  that  the  Real  Presence  is  not  only  possible,  but  that  it  is 
in  harmony  with  the  general  system  of  the  Gospel.  No  doubt 
it  is  a  mystery  that  God  should  become  man — that  two  natures, 
so  distinct  as  the  Infinite  and  the  finite,  should  be  united  in  one 
Person  without  the  destruction  of  either.  This  is  a  truth,  the 
more  marvellous  the  more  it  is  contemplated ;  and  which 
nothing  but  faith  in  God's  power  and  wisdom  can  enable  us  to 
accept.  But  let  this  truth  be  admitted,  and  why  should  we  be 
surprised  that  the  Manhood,  which  has  been  so  mysteriously 
assumed,  should  be  the  instrument  in  God's  works  of  mercy? 
For  otherwise,  so  far  as  regards  that  great  part  of  His  work 
of  Mediation,  which  depends  upon  His  agency  towards  His 
brethren  of  mankind.  Our  Lord's  Manhood  would  have  become 
an  inoperative  mystery.  And  when  it  is  remembered  what  is 
that  mysterious  relation  which  we  bear  to  the  first  man,  and 
that  Our  Lord  has  taken  the  title  of  the  "  Second  man,"  or  the 
"  Last  Adam,"  what  can  be  more  accordant  with  the  whole 
principle  of  the  Gospel,  than  that  as  death  is  propagated  through 
the  flesh  of  one,  so  life  should  be  disseminated  through  the  Flesh 
of  the  other  ? 

And  it  should  never  be  forgotten,  that  all  the  theories  which 
can  be  adduced  respecting  Christ's  Presence,  finally  resolve 
themselves   into   the   three  which    have   been   described :    His 

'  S.  Ambrose  de  Myst.  viii.  47. 

2  Horn.  vii.  de  Pasch.  Bib.  Patr.  viii.  825. 


122  CHRIST'S  PRESENCE  REAL, 

Presence  is  either  Symholical,  Virtual,  or  Real.  A  Sjinbolical 
Presence  contains  no  difficulties,  certainly,  in  itself,  but  neither 
does  it  contain  any  sacredue&s ;  it  is  in  truth  no  Presence  at  all ; 
and,  therefore,  to  reconcile  it  with  Scripture,  with  antiquity,  or 
with  the  analogy  of  the  faith,  presents  insuperable  difficulties. 
But  a  Virtual  Presence  presents  exactly  the  same  difficulties  as 
a  Real  Presence,  while  its  advocates  cannot  appeal  to  the 
testimony  of  Scripture  and  of  the  Fathers.  That  an  influence 
should  emanate  from  Our  Lord's  Human  Body,  which  can  take 
up  its  dwelling  in  the  consecrated  elements,  is  just  as  strange  as 
that  Our  Lord's  Body  should  possess  a  supernatural  as  well  as 
a  natural  mode  of  Presence.  Tliis  difficulty  Calvin's  system  has 
no  tendency  to  mitigate ;  its  real  peculiarity,  supposing  the 
principle  of  a  Virtual  Presence  to  be  honestly  maintained,  is 
only  that  it  provides  a  new  account  of  the  manner  in  which  this 
supernatural  gift  is  distributed.  The  ancient  Church  supposed 
that  the  gift  depended  upon  the  act  of  consecration,  and  the 
commission  of  the  priesthood — Calvin  affirmed  that  it  was 
assigned  to  His  favourites  by  the  arbitrary  decree  of  Almighty 
God.  This  theory  enabled  him,  no  doubt,  to  leave  the  elements 
out  of  account,  but  it  brought  in  a  greater  difficulty — the  dogma 
of  absolute_j;eprobatiou.  So  that  if  the  system  of  a  Virtual 
Presence  is  to  be  made  to  harmonize  with  the  teaching  of 
Scripture,  and  of  the  Church,  it  must  still  be  a  Virtual  Presence 
through  the  elements.  And  this  presents  the  same  difficulties  as 
the  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence,  without  possessing  the  same 
authority.  Neitlier  should  we  overlook  another  advantage  of  a 
jjractical  kind,  which  i'ollows  from  the  peculiar  character  of  the 
mystery  of  the  Eeal  Presence.  The  Holy  Eucharist,  like  the 
Incarnation  itself,  is  thus  rendered  an  objective  fact,  which  has 
an  cxii^tence  independently  of  our  conceptions  and  feelings.  This 
circumstance  is  rendered  far  more  manifest  by  its  relation  to  the 
external  world,  than  it  would  be  if  its  operations  were  wholly  of 
a  spiritual  nature,  and  lay  entirely  within  the  region  of  our 
thoughts.  And  thus  we  arc  likely  to  betake  ourselves  to  it  with 
greater  humility,  as  feeling  that  it  is  a  gift,  to  which  we  can 


NOT  MERELY  SYMBOLICAL  OR  VIRTUAL.  123 

contribute  notliiug.  For  though  our  unbelief  may  rob  us  of  its 
advantages,  yet  in  itself  it  is  independent,  not  of  our  co-operation 
only,  but  even  of  our  concurrence.  This  has  been  observed  to 
have  been  a  peculiarity  of  the  Incarnation  also ;  in  which  man- 
hood was  purely  passive,  and  the  Godhead  the  sole  actor,  "  The 
union  of  the  two  natures  was  brought  about,  not  by  both,  but  by 
the  Deity  alone."  So  that  we  may  apply,  in  a  measure,  to  the 
Holy  Eucharist,  that  which  the  same  author  goes  on  to  observe 
of  the  Incarnation.  "  The  union  between  us  and  God  is  not 
like  that  which  takes  place  in  the  Prophets,  and  in  some  others, 
where  we  labour  and  co-operate,  while  divine  grace  holds  out 
the  hand  ;  it  is  inexpressibly  different."  ^ 

Such,  then,  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Eeal  Presence ;  or  that 
Christ's  Body  is  a  medium  through  which  He  bestows  spiritual 
blessings.  Its  characteristic  truth  is  that  Christ's  Presence  is 
owing  to  the  presence  of  His  Body.  And  here,  therefore,  we 
may  see  a  distinction  between  Baptism  and  the  Holy  Eucharist, 
arising  out  of  the  fact  that  the  last  depends,  while  the  first  does 
not  depend,  upon  consecration.  For  it  may  be  said  that  the 
God-man  is  j^resent  in  Baptism  also,  seeing  that  in  that  sacra- 
ment He  not  only  exerts  His  spiritual  power,  but  that  men  are 
thereby  joined  to  His  mystical  Body.  The  difference  between  t 
them  is  that  Christ's  Body  is  present  in  Baptism,  only  because 
He  is  present  with  whom  it  is  personally  united ;  but  in  the 
Holy  Eucharist  the  presence  of  Christ's  Body  is  the  reason  why 
He  Himself  is  present.  "  In  illo  sacramento  Christus  est,  quia 
corpus  est  Christi."  ^  So  that  in  the  one  sacrament  there  is  a 
res  sacramenti,  but  not  in  the  other :  Christ  may  be  said  to  be 
present  in  Baptism,  He  is  really  present  in  the  Holy  Eucharist. 

This  diversity  between  Baptism  and  the  Holy  Eucharist  is 
further  illustrated  by  the  different  manner  in  which  the  benefits, 
which  accrue  from  them,  are  expressed  in  Scripture.  It  has 
been  already  observed  that  the  gift  in  Baptism  is  bestowed 
through  the  ordinance  at  large  ;  but  that  in  the  Holy  Eucharist 

^  Rusticus  contra  Acephalos.     Bib.  Pat.  x.  p.  366. 
^  S.  Ambros.  de  Myst.  ix.  58. 


124  CHRIST'S  PRESENCE  REAL, 

it  is  bestowed  through  the  elements.  For  the  Holy  Eucharist 
consists  of  a  sacramentum  or  outward  sign,  a  res  sacramenti  or 
thing  signified,  and  a  virtus  sacramenti  or  consequent  result ; 
while  in  Baj^tism,  the  grace  bestowed  is  the  whole  inward  por- 
tion. Now  the  Scriptural  promises  that  a  spiritual  benefit  shall 
attend  Bajitism,  are  associated  with  the  ordinance  at  large ; 
whei'eas,  instead  of  any  Scri2:)tural  promise  that  a  spiritual 
benefit  sliall  attend  the  reception  of  the  Holy  Eucharist,  we 
have,  first,  an  assurance  that  the  ree  sacramenti,  or  thing  sig- 
nified, shall  be  bestowed ;  and,  secondly,  an  assertion  of  the 
effects,  which  the  due  rece^jtion  of  this  inward  gift  is  fitted  to. 
produce. 

The  slightest  reference  to  the  Scriptural  statements  on  the 
subject  V  ill  make  this  manifest.  "  Baptism  "  is  said,  in  express 
words,  "  to  save  us."  "  By  one  Spirit  we  are  all  baptized  into 
one  body."  "  The  washing  of  regeneration "  is  coupled  with 
"  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  On  the  other  hand,  there 
is  not  a  single  passage  which  expressly '  connects  the  reception 
of  the  Holy  Eucharist  at  large  with  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
But  Our  Loi'd's  words  of  Institution,  and  St.  Paul's  state- 
ments to  the  Corinthians,  assure  us  that  the  outward  sign  is 
the  means  of  conveying  the  res  sacramenti,  or  thing  signified. 
And  the  blessings  which  result  from  the  due  reception  of  this 
res  sacramenti — i.  e.  Christ's  Body — are  stated  in  various  places 
by  St.  Paul :  and  by  Our  Lord  Himself,  in  the  sixth  chapter  of 
St.  John's  Gosjiel. 

One  consequence  of  the  manner  in  which  this  subject  is  men- 
tioned in  Scripture,  is,  that  on  the  principles  of  Zuinglius,  who 
did  not  admit  the  existence  of  a  r^es  sacramenti,  we  could  have 
no  assurance  that  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  beneficial.  His  follow- 
ers, therefore,  are  driven  to  rest  its  observance  either  ujiou  the 
fact  that  it  is  a  positive  command,  or  upon  the  effect  which  it  is 
calculated  to  produce  upon  the  mind  of  the  receiver.  Thus  the 
most  prominent  ordinance  of  the  Gospel  is  represented  either  to 

'  I  say  cxpresifhj,  for  1  Cor.  xii.  13  no  tloubt  contains  an  allusion  to 
the  Eucliarist. 


NOT  MERELY  SYMBOLICAL  OR  VIRTUAL.  125 

be  purely  a  ceremonial  observance,  like  the  ordinances  of  the 
law,  or  to  be  a  mere  acted  sermon.  Perhaps  it  may  be  said  that 
St.  Paul's  words — "  we  being  many,  are  one  bread  and  one  body, 
for  we  are  all  partakers  of  that  one  bread  " — are  equivalent  to  a 
promise  of  spiritual  benefit.  They  certainly  are  so,  if  inherence 
in  the  mystical  Body  of  Christ  implies  the  reception  of  spiritual 
blessings.  But  how  can  this  be  believed  by  those  who  suppose 
that  Church-membership  is  merely  an  admission  into  the  list  of 
Christians  ?  If  to  be  a  member  of  the  mystical  Body  of  Christ 
implies  the  reception  of  spiritual  blessings,  it  must  be  because 
the  mystical  arises  out  of  the  natural  Body  of  Christ.  This 
cannot  be  believed  by  those  who,  like  the  followers  of  Zuinglius, 
deny  that  any  pi'esent  influence  is  exerted  by  Christ's  glorified 
Body.  To  them,  therefore,  the  words  of  St.  Paul  can  convey  no 
particular  promise :  his  assertion  would  imply,  merely,  that  a 
certain  ceremonial  act  is  the  badge  by  which  men  are  known  to 
be  members  of  the  Christian  society.^  So  that  nothing  has  more 
perplexed  the  Zuinglian  writers  than  to  prove,  against  their 
Socinian  opponents,  that  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  attended  by  any 
spiritual  blessing.  Neither  can  they  give  any  real  answer,  ex- 
cept that  the  reception  of  this  sacrament  is  a  duty ;  and  that 
thqse  who  attempt  to  discharge  a  duty,  may  always  expect  to 
receive  grace. 

And  here,  therefore,  we  may  sum  up  the  result  of  our  com- 
parison between  the  three  kinds  of  presence — Symbolical,  Vir- 
tual, and  Real.  The  Emperor  Charlemagne  might  be  said  to  be 
-present  Jiguratively,  or  symbolically,  throughout  his  vast  emj^ire, 
because  justice  was  everywhere  administered  in  his  name  :  he 
was  present  throughout  it  virtually,  for  such  was  the  energy  of 
his  character,  that  his  influence  was  everywhere  felt :  but  really, 
he  was  only  present  in  his  palace  at  Aix-la-Chapelle.  If  Our 
Blessed  Lord's  Humanity  had  no  other  than  that  natural  pre- 
sence which  belongs  to  common  men,  His  Jieal  Presence  would 
in  like  manner  be  confined  to  that  one  place  which  He  occupies 

^  Sacramentsi,  according  to  Zuinglius,  were  only  sig-ns  by  which  a  man 
proves  himself  to  the  Church  to  be  a  Christian. — Vide  cap.  ii.  p.  28. 


126  REAL  PRESENCE  TAUGHT 

in  heaven.  But  by  reason  of  those  attributes  wliich  His  Man- 
hood possesses  through  its  oneness  with  God,  He  has  hkewise  a 
supernatural  presence ;  the  operations  of  which  are  restricted 
only  by  His  own  will.  And  His  will  is  to  be  present  in  the 
Holy  Eucharist ;  not  indeed  as  an  object  to  the  senses  of  the 
receiver,  but  through  the  intervention  of  consecrated  elements. 
So  that  His  presence  does  not  depend  upon  the  thought  and 
imaginations  of  men, 'but  upon  His  o\va  supernatural  power,  and 
upon  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  He  is  present  Himself, 
and  not  merely  by  His  influence,  effects,  and  operation ;  by  that 
essence,  and  in  that  substance,  which  belongs  to  Him  as  the  true 
Head  of  mankind.  And  therefore  He  is  really  present ;  and 
gives  His  Body  to  be  the  res  sacramenti,  or  thing  signified. 


CHAPTEE  YII. 


OUR  LOEDS  PRESENCE  IN  THE  HOLY  EUCHARIST  SHOWN*  TO  BE 
REAL,  AND  NOT  MERELY  SYMBOLICAL  OR  VIRTUAL,  BY  REFER- 
ENCE TO  THE  SIXTH  CHAPTER  OF  ST.  JOHN. 

Hitherto  the  inquiry  has  been  built  upon  our  Lord's  words 
of  Institution,  as  explained  by  the  belief  and  practice  of  the 
ancient  Church.  Hence  followed  the  validity  of  consecration, 
and  as  a  further  consequence,  that  the  gift  was  bestowed  through 
the  consecrated  elements.  The  next  step  was  to  show  that  this 
gift  was  the  presence  of  Christ.  Again,  it  resulted  from  the 
same  premises  that  the  relation  between  the  Gift  bestowed  and 
the  consecrated  elements,  that  is,  between  the  res  sacramenti  and 
the  sacramentum,  or  between  the  Predicate  and  the  Subject  in 
Our  Lord's  sentence  of  Listitution,  was  that  of  sacramental  iden- 
tity.  And  hence  it  has  been  shown  finally,  first,  that  Our  Lord's 
presence  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  not  symbolical  merely,  or  vir- 
tual,  l)ut  real ;  and  secondly,  that  this  Ecal  Presence  of  Our 
Lord  is  not  bestowed  naturally,  or  under  the  same  form  and 


BY  ST.  JOHN  VI.  127 

character  which  belongs  to  Our  Lord's  Body  in  heaven,  but 
supernaturally,  or  under  the  form  of  bread  and  wine. 

It  is  now  time  to  take  a  wider  range,  and  to  authenticate 
these  statements  by  reference,  as  well  to  other  passages  of  Holy 
Scripture,  as  to  the  general  judgment  of  the  ancient  Church. 
The  first  of  these  authorities  shall  be  considered  in  the  present 
Chapter ;  the  two  following  Chapters  will  be  given  to  the 
second. 

There  are  three  main  passages  of  Holy  Scrij)ture,  in  which 
the  nature  of  this  sacrament  is  explained — the  words  of  Insti- 
tution in  the  Gospels — the  tenth  and  eleventh  chapters  of  the 
first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians — and  the  sixth  chapter  of 
St.  John's  Gospel.  The  two  first  of  these  have  already  been 
referred  to,  though  it  may  be  observed,  further,  that  several 
expressions  occur  in  the  first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  besides 
the  words  of  Institution,  from  which  the  truth  of  the  Real 
Presence  might  be  deduced.  The  statement,  "  he  that  eateth 
and  drinketh  unworthily,  eateth  and  drinketh  damnation  to 
himself,  not  discerning  the  Lord's  Body,"  is  incompatible  with 
the  denial  that  Christ's  Presence  is  really  vouchsafed.  The 
especial  judgments  which  followed  (sickness  and  death),  implied 
that  this  was  more  heinous  than  other  acts  of  profaneness :  yet 
what  would  have  been  its  peculiar  enormity,  unless  the  thing 
profaned  had  been  really  the  Body  of  Christ  ?  Again,  St.  Paul's 
mode  of  speaking  accords  perfectly  with  that  belief  in  the  co- 
existence of  a  sacramentum  and  a  res  sacramenti,  which  has 
been  shown  to  be  intimately  allied  with  the  doctrine  of  the  Peal 
Presence  of  Christ.  For  he  speaks  of  that  which  is  received, 
sometimes  as  "  this  bread," — "  this  cup  ; "  sometimes  as  "  the 
Body  and  Blood  of  the  Lord,"  which  is  the  inward  part,  or  thing 
signified. 

But  the  portion  of  Holy  Scripture  in  which  this  subject  is 
most  largely  treated,  is  no  doubt  the  sixth  chapter  of  St.  John's 
Gospel ;  and  it  will  be  by  comparison  with  the  expressions  which 
there  occur  that  we  shall  best  appreciate  the  scriptural  charac- 
ter of  the  preceding  statements.     Yet,  as  it  has  often  been  de- 


128  REAL  PRESENCE  TAUGHT 

nied,  strange  as  it  may  seem,  that  Our  Lord's  discourse  in  the 
sixth  of  St.  John  was  intended  to  refer  to  the  Holy  Eucharist, 
it  is  necessary  first  to  substantiate  this  point,  and  then  to  show 
that  our  Lord's  words  sanction  the  doctrine  of  the  Eeal  Presence. 
The  ground  upon  which  this  passage  of  .Scripture  lias  often 
been  denied  to  refer  to  the  Holy  Eucharist,  is  that  the  words 
were  spoken  by  Our  Lord  before  the  institution  of  this  sacrament. 
This  appears  indeed  to  ])e  the  only  ground  for  disputing  that 
which  otherwise  could  hardly  be  questioned.  And  a  singular 
ground  it  is,  when  taken  by  parties  who  allow  Our  Lord's  abso- 
lute foreknowledge ;  and  therefore  admit  His  perfect  familiarity 
with  the  institutions  and  fortunes  of  His  coming  kingdom. 
Moreover,  it  proceeds  on  an  entire  forgetfulness  of  the  peculiar 
character  and  purpose  oi'  St.  John's  Gospel.  "When  the  beloved 
Apostle  addressed  himself  to  gather  up  the  fragments  which  re- 
mained, after  his  brethren  had  fallen  asleep,  it  is  obvious  that 
his  design  was  to  illustrate  those  great  doctrines  which  he  per- 
ceived to  be  the  characteristic  features  of  the  Christian  Faith. 
These  doctrines  are  especially  three  :  the  doctrine  of  the  Blessed 
Trinity — the  beginning  and  basis  of  all  knowledge  ;  the  doctrine 
of  Our  Blessed  Lord's  Incarnation — the  medium  whereby  divine 
gifts  were  imparted  to  man's  natui'e  ;  the  doctrine  of  the  Church 
and  the  Sacraments — the  instruments,  that  is,  whereby  those 
treasures  which  have  been  stored  up  in  the  Humanity  of  the 
Son  of  God  are  to  be  communicated  to  His  brethren.  The 
slightest  study  of  St.  John's  Gospel  shows  that  his  purpose  was 
not  merely  to  add  some  few  facts  to  the  narrative  of  Our  Lord's 
Life,  nor  yet  to  arrange  that  which  was  known  in  a  more 
methodical  order,  l)ut  to  bring  out  those  statements  of  Our  Lord 
on  which  the  mysteries  of  the  Faith  were  dependent.  "  This 
most  wise  Evangelist,  when  instructing  us  in  these  wonderful 
mysteries,  fitly  introduces  Our  Saviour  Christ  as  the  first  source 
of  that  which  is  to  be  taught  respecting  them,  that  Our  Lord's 
authority  might  silence  opponents." '  For  the  discourses  of  the 
Son  of  Man  were  full  of  pregnant  expressions,  which  were 
^  S.  Cyril  in  Joan.  lib.  iv.  3,  vol.  iv.  p.  372. 


BY  ST.  JOHN  VI.  129 

dropped  as  seed  into  the  soil  of  men's  hearts,  to  flourish  and 
ripen  at  a  distant  day. 

How  many  things  are  recorded  even  by  the  three  earlier 
Evangelists  respecting  which  we  read,  "  they  understood  none  of 
these  things ;  and  this  saying  was  hid  from  them,  neither  knew 
they  the  things  which  were  spoken ! "  How  little  did  the 
Apostles  themselves  enter  into  the  nature  of  that  kingdom,  in 
which  the  mother  of  the  two  disciples  entreated  for  them  the 
foremost  place  !  How  imperfect  must  have  been  their  apprecia- 
tion of  the  manner  in  which,  like  leaven,  it  would  influence  the 
whole  mass  of  man's  nature,  and  grow  like  the  mustard  seed,  till 
it  overshadowed  the  earth  !  Yet  Our  Lord  was  pleased  to 
communicate  such  truths  in  abundance,  and  St.  John's  Grospel 
is  comjDosed  of  little  else.  There  is  not  a  chapter  in  it,  which 
would  not  be  unintelhgible  to  those  who  supposed  that  they 
were  only  listening  to  a  Jewish  peasant  of  extraordinary  depth 
and  thoughtfulness,  and  were  ignorant  of  the  wonderful  mystery 
that  in  His  Person  "  (xod  was  manifest  in  the  flesh."  What 
could  such  men  understand  by  Our  Lord's  declaration,  that  He 
was  "  the  light  of  the  world  ; "  that  their  "  Father  Abraham  re- 
joiced to  see  "  His  "  day ; "  that  He  "  came  down  from  heaven," 
that  He  and  His  Father  were  one  ?  Even  to  the  Apostles, 
though  partially  acquainted  with  the  mystery  of  Our  Lord's 
nature,  these  things,  as  we  are  assured,  were  dark  and  uncer- 
tain ;  although  they  "  trusted  that  it  should  have  been  He  which 
should  have  redeemed  Israel."  "  These  things  understood  not 
His  disciples  at  the  first,  but  when  Jesus  was  glorified  then  re- 
membered they  that  these  things  were  written  of  Him."  But 
to  the  people  at  large,  who  supposed  Him  to  be  "  the  carpenter's 
son,"  whose  father  and  mother  they  knew,  such  expressions  must 
have  been  wholly  unintelligible.  They  were  not  like  those 
general  statements  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  which  appeal 
to  the  common  principles  of  man's  moral  nature  ;  they  had  their 
basis  in  that  fact  of  Our  Lord's  Incarnation,  which  was  a  secret 
to  the  multitudes.  Yet  Our  Lord  continually  referred  to  truths 
which  depended  upon  this  deep  mystery,  as  well  as  to  its  con- 

K 


130  REAL  PRESENCE  TAUGHT 

hexion  with  His  future  suiferings.  And  such  statements  St. 
John  gathered  togetlicr,  many  years  afterwards,  for  the  edifica- 
tion of  the  Church.  Why  should  we  be  surprised,  then,  to  find 
allusion  to  that  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Eucharist,  which  was  the 
central  point  in  the  worship  of  Christians  V  And  was  it  not 
rather  to  be  expected  that  St.  John  would  have  added  a  caution 
that  this  custom  was  not  referred  to,  if  Our  Lord's  words  had 
no  reference  to  a  practice  which  from  the  first  occupied  so  large 
a  part  in  the  thoughts  and  attention  of  Christians  V 

These  grounds  for  supposing  that  Our  Lord  was  referring  to 
the  Holy  Eucharist,  are  greatly  strengthened  ])y  reference  to 
His  prediction  respecting  the  efl&cacy  of  Christian  Baptism. 
One  difference  of  course  existed  between  the  cases — for  whereas 
the  Holy  Eucharist  was  an  ordinance  wholly  without  precedent, 
Baptism,  on  the  other  hand,  had  been  usual  among  the  Jews. 
Nicodemus,  therefore,  expresses  no  wonder  at  the  mention  of 
water,  though  he  was  at  a  loss  to  understand  how  he  could  be 
born  again :  whereas  Our  Lord's  statement  that  He  would  give 
them  His  Elesh  to  eat  and  His  Blood  to  drink,  surprised  the 
Jews  even  more  than  His  declaration  that  He  was  Himself  the 
channel  through  which  they  were  to  receive  heavenly  graces. 
But  as  to  the  full  nature  and  import  of  these  holy  rites,  it  is 
manifest  that  one  was  as  little  understood  antecedently  to  the 
institution  of  Christian  Baj^tism,  as  the  other  was  before  the 
Last  Supper.  "  There  can  therefore  be  no  presumption  dra\vn 
agaiust  the  application  of  this  Chapter  to  the  institution  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  from  the  time  when  the  doctrine  was  delivered, 
which  would  not  equally  militate  against  the  application  of  the 
third  Chapter  to  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism  :  an  application 
which  is,  notwithstanding,  universally  allowed." 

Bishop  Cleaver  goes  on  to  point  out  the  singular  coincidence 
in  manner  and  arrangement  which  runs  through  the  Chapters  Ln 
which  these  two  Sacraments  are  predicted : ' 

"  Our  Saviour  had  told  Nicodemus  that  he  must  be  born  again. 

*  "Three  Sermons  on  the  Sacrament  of  the  Ijord's  Supper,"  by  William 
(Cleaver),  Lord  Bishop  of  Chester  (Oxford,  ISOl,  p.  25). 


BY  ST.  JOHN  VI.  131 

Nicodemus  replies  to  the  impossibility  of  the  thing  in  the 
obvious  and  literal  sense  of  the  words.  Jesus  in  answer,  with 
peculiar  solemnity  and  claim  to  attention,  points  out  the  possi- 
bility and  the  means  of  being  born  again :  as  well  as  the  neces- 
sity of  such  regeneration.  '  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  thee,  except 
a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  God.'  To  which,  still  I'emarking  wpon  the  want 
of  apprehension  in  Nicodemus,  He  adds,  '  if  I  have  told  you 
earthly  things,  and  ye  believe  not,  how  shall  ye  believe  if  I  tell 
you  of  heavenly  things  ? ' 

"  In  the  sixth  chapter,  Jesus  had  said,  'the  bread  that  I  will  give 
is  My  flesh,  which  I  will  give  for  the  life  of  the  world.'  The  Jews 
again  answering,  as  Nicodemus  had  before  done  to  the  impossibility 
of  the  tiling  in  its  literal  sense,  said,  '  How  can  this  man  give  us 
His  flesh  to  eat  ? '  To  which  Our  Lord  returns  an  answer,  corres- 
ponding to  that  given  to  Nicodemus,  even  to  the  very  turn  of  the 
sentence  :  '  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  except  ye  eat  the  flesh 
of  the  Son  of  Man,  and  drink  His  blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you  ; ' 
the  purport  of  which  words  is  repeated  and  confirmed  in  the  three 
next  verses,  to  which  He  adds,  still  remarking  upon  their  want 
of  apprehension,  '  Doth  this  offend  you  ?  What  and  if  ye  shall 
see  the  Son  of  Man  ascend  uj)  where  He  was  before  ? '  A  reply 
so  exactly  parallel  to  that  with  which  He  had  concluded  His 
conversation  with  this  master  in  Israel,  that  the  bare  juxta- 
position of  these  sentences  will  render  each  the  comment  upon 
the  other.  From  which  analogy  I  cannot  but  think  that  who- 
ever will  observe  the  style,  manner,  and  connexion  of  these  two 
discourses,  will  be  of  opinion  that  St.  John  took  pains  indus- 
triously to  show  that  the  two  institutions,  which  were  to  distin- 
guish this  religion,  made  part  of  Our  Saviour's  plan,  long  before 
they  were  actually  enjoined."  ^ 

^  THs  relation  between  the  third  and  sixth  chapters  of  St.  John,  and 
their  connexion  with  the  Sacraments  of  Baptism  and  the  Holy  Eucharist, 
is  pointed  out  by  S.  Gregory  Nyssen.  "We  who  have  been  instructed 
by  the  sacred  voice,  '  that  unless  a  man  has  been  born  again  of  water,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  he  shall  not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God  ; '  and  that 
he  that  eateth  My  Flesh  and  drinketh  My  Blood,  he  shall  live  for  ever — 
we  have  been  persuaded  that  by  the  confession  of  the  sacred  names,  I 
mean  the  Father,  the  Sou,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  mystery  of  Godliness 
is  accomplished ;  and  that  by  communion  in  the  mystical  customs  and 
symbols  our  salvation  is  secured." — Coiit.  Eunom.  Or.  xi.  vol.  ii.  p.  704. 
On   this   subject,  vide  Fahntrs   Dmedutiuns  on    the   Eastern   Catholic 

K  2 


182  REAL  PRESENCE  TAUGHT 

The  above  considerations  render  it  not  unnatural,  at  all 
events,  that  Our  Lord  should  have  taken  this  occasion  of 
instructing  His  disciples  respecting  one  of  the  mysteries  of  His 
future  kingdom.  They  show  that  there  is  no  antecedent  im- 
probability in  givLiig  such  an  interpretation  to  His  words.  But 
what  positive  evidence  is  to  be  had  on  the  subject  ?  It  is  plain 
that  the  question  must  Ije  decided  by  two  considerations — either 
by  the  natural  force  of  the  words,  as  understood  by  any  one,  or 
by  the  sense  put  upon  them  by  the  Church.  The  first  will  be 
to  appeal  to  each  man's  private  judgment ;  the  second,  either  to 
listen  to  the  Church  as  an  authorised  teacher,  or  to  admit  that  at 
all  events  the  stream  was  likely  to  be  clearest  when  it  was  near 
its  source.  But  before  inquiring  to  what  conclusions  these  princi- 
ples would  conduct,  let  us  consider  what  are  the  exact  statements 
in  this  chapter  which  it  is  proposed  to  interpret. 

The  disputed  part  of  this  chapter  begins  with  the  thii*tieth 
verse,  in  which  the  Jews  applied  to  Our  Lord  for  some 
sign  on  which  to  rest  their  faith  in  Him.  But  having  already 
given  them  a  sufficient  sign  in  the  miracle  of  the  loaves,  Our 
Lord,  instead  of  complying  with  their  demand,  laid  before  them 
some  deep  truths,  which  it  required  an  earnest  personal  affection, 
and  a  firm  conviction  of  the  authority  of  His  teaching,  to  enable 
men  to  accept.  In  the  twenty  verses,  therefore,  which  follow 
(vv.  30-35),  Our  Lord  affirms  the  great  truth  of  His  Media- 
tion, and  tells  the  Jews  that  this  was  the  reality,  of  wliich  the 
gift  of  manna  was  a  sign.  He  states  to  them  that  the  relation 
between  man  and  God,  on  which  depended  man's  happiness,  was- 
only  to  be  maintained  through  Himself  as  Mediator :  that  into 
His  man's  nature  the  Godhead  had  poured  its  gifts,  and  thus 
had  constituted  Him  the  real  food  and  sustenance  of  men's  souls. 
This  was  tlie  fact  wliicli  it  had  pleased  God  to  exhibit  by  way  of 
type,  when  He  fed  His  people  with  manna  in  the  wilderness. 
And  He  Himself,  by  coming  into  tlie  world,  had  brought  down 
among  them  the  true  principle  of  si)iritual  existence. 

Communio7i,  Diss.  xiv.  p.  212  ;   and  iS.  John  Damascene,  De  Fule  Orthod. 
iv.  13,  vol.  i.  p.  267. 


BY  ST.  JOHN  VI.  133 

It  seems  to  have  been  Our  Lord's  intention  by  this  statement 
to  sift  the  faith  of  His  hearers,  and  to  lay  open  to  themselves 
those  who  had  followed  Him  merely  from  curiosity,  or  the  hope 
of  worldly  benefit.  That  such  persons  were  present  is  obvious 
from  the  result ;  and  that  they  understood  well  enough  the 
general  tenor  of  His  statement  appears  from  their  remarks. 
They  perceived  Him  to  say  that  in  His  person  the  Godhead  in 
some  way  or  other  had  come  down  among  men :  nor  did  they 
complain  that  the  assertion  was  unintelligible,  though  they 
withheld  their  belief.  "  They  said,  is  not  this  Jesus,  the  son  of 
Joseph,  whose  father  and  mother  we  know?  How  is  it  then 
that  He  saith  I  came  down  from  heaven?"  The  statement, 
then,  which  is  contained  in  these  verses,  is  that  of  Our  Lord's 
Mediation ;  a  statement  which  the  Jews  found  no  difficulty  in 
understanding,  but  which  their  ignorance  of  the  wonderful  mys- 
tery of  His  Incarnation,  and  their  indifference  to  the  wisdom  and 
power  of  His  words  and  actions,  led  them  to  disbelieve.  But  in 
the  fifty-first  verse  Our  Lord  passes  to  another  subject.  "  The 
clause,  'the  bread  that  I  will  give  is  My  flesh,'  if  it  is  not  a 
decided  transition  to  another  topic,"  says  Olshausen,  "is  yet 
23laiuly  an  advance  to  some  further  point  in  the  discourse."^  So 
that  whereas  from  the  30th  to  the  50th  verse,  Our  Lord  had 
declared  nothing  but  the  general  truth  that  He  was  the 
Mediator,  through  whom  all  divine  gifts  were  bestowed 
upon  men,  He  adds  a  further  truth  in  the  following  verses 
(51-58),  and  declares  that  the  eating  of  His  Flesh  and  the 
drinking  His  Blood  is  the  method  by  which  these  gifts  are 
to  be  received. 

The  point  in  dispute  then  is,  whether  these  last  eight  verses  refer 
to  the  Holy  Communion  or  no.  Those  who  suppose  them  to  do 
so  will  naturally  understand  Our  Lord  to  have  made  a  prophetic 
statement  respecting  a  truth  (universally  admitted  by  the  ancient 
Church),  which  St.  Cyril  thus  expresses :  "  Our  Lord's  very 
Body  was  sanctified  by  the  power  of  the  Word  which  had  been 
united  to  it;  and  it  is  thus  rendered  effective  for  us  for  the 
^  Olshausen  in  loco. 


134  REAL  PRESENCE  TAUGHT 

purpose  of  the  Mystical  Eucharist,  so  as  to  be  able  to  implant  in 
us  its  own  sanctification."'  Those  who  deny  tliat  Our  Lord's 
words  refer  to  tlie  Holy  Eucharist,  have  commonly  asserted  that 
to  eat  His  Flesh  was  a  parabolical  exjiression,  by  which  was 
meant  either  to  profit  by  the  benefits  of  His  death,  or  to  receive 
His  doctrines. 

The  one  of  these  intei'pretations  (that  to  eat  Our  Lord's 
Flesh  was  to  profit  by  His  death)  has  been  thought  plausible, 
because  the  Jews  were  familiar  with  the  idea  of  eating  that 
which  had  been  offered  in  sacrifice.  Since  Our  Lord,  therefore, 
had  said  He  would  give  His  Flesh  for  the  life  of  the  world, 
they  might  l)e  supposed,  it  is  said,  to  gather  that  He  would  give 
it  as  a  sacrifice.  But  this  is  merely  to  adduce  one  unknown 
thing  as  the  explanation  of  another.  So  that  this  interjiretation 
cannot  be  consistently  maintained  by  those  who  make  it  an 
objection  against  referring  this  passage  to  the  Holy  Eucharist, 
that  the  Jews  would  have  been  unable  to  understand  it.  For 
Our  Lord  had  said  not  a  syllable  about  His  death,  and  what 
should  the  Jews  know  of  His  efficacy  as  a  victim '?  When  He 
predicted  that  as  Jonah  was  three  days  in  the  whale's  belly,  so 
would  He  be  tlu'ee  days  in  the  heart  of  the  earth,  what  idea 
would  his  words  have  conveyed  to  persons  who  were  unacquainted 
with  Jonah's  history?  And  how  was  it  possible,  in  like 
manner,  for  the  Jews  to  draw  conclusions  from  facts  respecting 
Himself,  of  which  they  were  ignorant  ?  Besides,  even  if  the 
Jews  had  been  so  far  informed  respecting  Our  Lord's  coming 
sufferings,  as  to  attach  the  meaning  suggested  to  the  eating  His 
Flesh,  what  could  they  understand  by  the  command  to  drink 
His  Blood  ?  "  Though  we  have  some  obscure  hints  of  the  blood 
of  sacrifices  drunk  in  the  necromantic  rites  of  the  Pagans,  the 
Jewish  law  particularly  forbids  the  use  of  blood.  The  injunction, 
therefore,  to  drink  His  Blood,  would  with  a  Jew  have  its 
peculiar    difficulties.      Nay,    the    prohibition   of  blood    in   the 

'  S.  C'yr.  in  Joan.  lili.  xi.  9,  vol.  iv.  p.  979.  So  S.  Atlianasius,  "^fjifts 
Kai  dv6f>0JiTOi  rrapa  tov  Avyov  OfoirotoiinfOa,  irpoaKrjtpOivTts  Sid  r^s  aapKos 
ouTou." — Oiutio  iii.  84,  vol.  i.  p.  554. 


BY  ST.  JOHN  VI.  135 

Mosaic  law,  either  generally  in  the  way  of  sustenance,  or  as  a 
part  of  their  sacrificial  feasts,  is  grounded  upon  its  being  the 
means  of  atonement."^  So  that  even  if  the  Jews  could  have 
understood  Our  Lord's  declaration  respecting  the  eating  His 
flesh,  without  knowing  the  fact  of  His  atoning  death,  they  could 
not  have  understood  His  statement  that  they  were  to  drink  His 
Blood,  without  contradicting  the  very  principle  to  which  He  is 
asserted  to  have  made  reference. 

These  considerations  supply  unanswerable  proof  that  Our 
Lord  could  not  have  addressed  these  words  to  the  Jews,  with 
the  intention  that  they  should  understand  Him  to  refer  to  the 
benefits  which  were  to  be  conferred  by  His  atoning  death. 
Indeed,  this  interpretation  must  have  been  first  suggested  by 
the  institution  of  the  Holy  Eucharist.  For  the  only  reason  why 
to  eat  Our  Lord's  Flesh  and  drink  His  Blood  can  be  supposed  to 
be  identical  with  the  profiting  by  His  Sacrifice,  is  because  the 
sacramental  act  is  an  ordained  means  of  participating  in  the 
value  of  His  sufferings.  So  that  this  interpretation,  instead  of 
implying  that  Our  Lord  did  not  refer  to  the  Holy  Eucharist, 
implies  that  this  was  the  very  thing  to  which  He  was  referring. 
It  is  an  inadequate  explanation  of  Our  Lord's  words,  and  does  not 
express  the  whole  truth  which  they  communicate,  nor  account 
for  the  prominence  given  to  a  mode  of  expression  which  must 
seem  singularly  forced  and  unnatural  unless  the  reality  of  the 
Holy  Eucharist  be  admitted ;  but  it  would  be  wholly  inad- 
missible, had  not  Our  Lord  referred  to  that  fact  of  the  Holy 
Eucharist,  by  which  alone  it  could  be  justified. 

The  other  interpretation,  however,  that  by  the  eating  of  His 
Flesh  Our  Lord  meant  the  receiving  His  doctrines,  has  been 
more  commonly  maintained  by  those  who  deny  His  words  to 
refer  to  the  Holy  Eucharist.  It  has  been  said  that  this  was  the 
meaning  which  a  Jewish  audience  would  naturally  attach  to  the 
expression  ;  and  such  passages  have  been  referi-ed  to  as  Ecclesias- 
ticus  xxiv.  21,  "They  that  eat  Me  shall  yet  be  hungry,  and 

'  Bishop  Cleaver's  Sermons,  p.  29. 


136  REAL  PRESENCE  TAUGHT 

they  that  diiiik  Me  sliall  yet  be  thirsty."  So  that,  as  "Whitby 
expresses  it,  "  to  eat  of  the  bread  which  came  down  from 
heaven  "  is  "  to  believe  in  Christ  breakuig  the  bread  of  life  to  us 
by  His  doctrine."  For,  the  same  writer  maintains,  "  among  the 
Oriental  and  Jewish  writers,  to  eat  is  used  as  a  symbol  of  the 
food  of  the  soul."  Here,  then,  is  a  notion  which  would  exclude 
all  reference  to  the  Holy  Eucharist,  and  which  is  rested  on  the 
idea  which  Our  Lord's  words  must  have  conveyed  to  His 
original  hearers. 

The  first  objection  wl)ich  suggests  itself  to  this  interpretation 
is,  that  the  words  appear  not  to  have  been  understood  by  the 
Jews.  If  this  was  all  which  they  were  calculated  to  convey  to 
an  Oriental  hearer,  why  did  the  Jews  strive  "  among  themselves, 
saying,  how  can  this  man  give  us  His  flesh  to  eat  ? "  And 
if  their  error  did  not  arise  from  want  of  faith,  but  because  they 
did  not  appreciate  the  force  of  an  ordinary  image,  why  did  not 
their  gracious  instructor  set  them  right  by  altering  His 
metaphor  ?  The  statement  of  Our  Lord's  Mediation,  w.  30-50, 
they  understood,  but  rejected;  they  did  not  complain  that  it  was 
unintelligible,  but  asserted  it  to  be  unfounded.  But  when  this 
statement  was  added,  they  could  attach  to  it  no  meaning,  "  This 
'  is  an  hard  saying,  who  can  hear  it  ?  "  It  is  plain,  therefore,  by 
the  judgment  of  the  Jews  themselves,  that  this  was  not  the 
ordinary  way  of  expressing  the  familiar  ti'uth,  that  Our  Lord 
would  instruct  them  hy  His  doctrine. 

Neither  is  there  a  shadow  of  evidence  for  saying  that  any 
such  meanuig  could  naturally  have  been  deduced  from  such 
expressions.  To  eat  wisdom  may  be  taken  as  a  metaiihorical 
expression  for  receiving  it,  but  there  is  no  single  instance  in 
which  to  (lit  any  iiian's  llcsh  is  usid  as  equivalent  to  the  receiving 
his  doctriiiu.  i'aiabolical  us  was  the  language  of  some  of  tlie 
PropTiets,  they  never  employed  such  a  metaphor  ^  as  this ;  nor  is 
a  single  example  of  a  like  kind  to  be  found  among  the  writings  of 
the  Apostles.     "  I  am  confident,"  says  Bishop  Cleaver,  "  there 

'  "  oTi  adpxa  Tis  ((pa-yfv,  ovSenoTf  oiiSds  uiriv  (Kfivaii'." — <;^.  Chrysostom 
III  Joan.  JJoin.  4G.  2,  p.  272. 


BY  ST.  JOHN  VI.  137 

is  no  fact,  no  custom,  no  rite,  no  doctrine,  and  no  expression  in 
Scripture,  prior  to  the  institution  itself,  which  will  give  any 
explication  of  this  Our  Saviour's  assertion :  '  My  Flesh  is  meat 
indeed,  and  My  Blood  is  drink  indeed.'  "  ^  In  every  instance  in 
which  to  eat  a  person's  flesh  is  spoken  of  in  Scripture,  to  injure 
or  destroy  the  party  referred  to  is  the  idea  conveyed.  So  it  is 
in  Psalm  xxvii.  2 :  "  "When  the  wicked  came  upon  me  to 
eat  up  my  flesh,  they  stumbled  and  fell."  And  so  does  St. 
James  use  it :  "  the  rust  of  them  shall  eat  your  flesh  as  it  were 
fire."  No  single  instance  can  be  produced  either  from  Classical 
or  Oriental  sources,  in  which  this  phrase  is  used  in  any  other 
sense  than  that  of  consuming  or  preying  upon  the  person  spoken 
of.  Gresenius^  gives  these  as  the  sole  interpretations  of  the 
phrase,  '  to  eat  any  ones  Jlesh,'  which  his  great  acquaintance 
with  the  Semitic  languages  supplied.  Nor  is  this  extraordinary  ; 
for  metaphorical  language  is  the  language  of  nature,  and  must 
have  a  counterpart  in  those  realities  of  which  it  is  the 
expression.  Now,  "  to  ruminate  upon  and  digest  the  instructions 
of  another,  is  as  easy  and  obvious  a  language  as  the  subject 
admits,  .  .  .  but  to  eat  the  body,  and  drink  the  blood  of  your 
teacher,  as  such,  bears  no  conceivable  analogy  to  any  benefit  to 
be  received  from  thence,  and  is  in  truth  a  saying,  not  only  hard 

in  point  of  doctrine,  but  in  point  of  interpretation  also 

As  much  in  vain  is  it  to  say,  that  to  eat  the  flesh  and  drink  the 
blood  of  a  benefactor,  has  for  its  object  only  a  more  solemn  and 
awful  remembrance  of  him.  Until  the  patrons  of  the  one  or  the 
other  hypothesis  can  produce  some  matter  or  some  allusion,  in 
sacred,  or  at  least  profane  writ,  which  will  better  warrant  their 
suppositions,  the  assertions  will  find  as  little  credit  as  they  have 
foundation."  ^ 

But  it  has  been  affirmed  that  this  interpretation  is  not  so 

^  Bishop  Cleaver's  Sermons,  p.  29. 

^  "  Das  Fleisch  jemandes  essen  fiir  :  gierig  seyn  nach  seinem  Blute,  von 
wilden  grausamen  Feinden.  Ps.  27.  2.  (vgl.  Hiob.  19.  22.)  Sein  Fleisch 
verzehren,  fiir :  sich  abharmen,  vom  Neidischen.  Koh.  4.  5." — Hehrdisches 
und  Clialddisches  Handworterbuch,  p.  101,  A.D.  1834. 

^  Bishop  Cleaver,  pp.  27,  28. 


REAL  PRESENCE  TAUGHT 

restitute  of  authority  as  it  is  of  reason  ;  and  Whitby  and  others 
have  represented  it  to  liave  liad  various  sujjporters  in  the  early 
Churcli.  It  is  essential  to  examine  the  grounds  of  this  assertion. 
For  if  it  can  be  shown  that  the  contrary  was  the  fact,  there  will 
remain  no  kind  of  reason  for  doubting  that  Our  Lord's  words 
had  reference  to  the  Holy  Eucharist.  Now  it  must  be  remem- 
bered that  He  speaks  of  two  things  in  tliis  Chapter  ;  first,  of  the 
general  fact  of  His  Mediation,  and  that  His  Humanity  was  the 
medium  through  which  divine  graces  found  their  way  to  mankind; 
secondly,  tliat  the  eating  His  Body  and  the  drinking  His  Blood 
was  the  method  in  which  this  gift  was  to  be  participated  by 
individuals.  It  is  necessary  to  bear  this  distinction  in  mind, 
when  we  interpret  the  statements  of  the  ancient  writers.  Those 
who  refer  merely  to  the  former  of  these  two  doctrines,  and  observe 
that  all  graces  are  derived  from  Our  Lord's  ^lediation,  were 
not  bound  to  make  any  allusion  to  the  latter,  or  to  decide  whether 
Our  Lord's  statements  respecting  His  Body  and  Blood  had 
reference  to  the  Holy  Eucharist.  Now,  of  the  writers  who  are 
alleged  to  have  been  unconscious  that  the  Holy  Eucharist  is 
referred  to  in  this  jilace,  not  one  has  given  a  detailed  exjilanation 
of  it ;  the  most  which  can  be  said  is,  that  they  have  made  casual 
or  incidental  allusions  to  some  part  of  Our  Lord's  words,  leaving 
their  estimate  of  the  rest  uncertain.  But  the  earliest  ancient 
writers  who  profess  to  give  a  detailed  ex^iosition  of  the  whole 
Chapter — St.  Chrysostom,  St.  Augustin,  and  St.  Cyril — while 
they  refer  the  former  part,  vv.  30-50,  to  Our  Lord's  Mediation 
at  large,  avowedly  refer  the  latter  part,  vv.  51-58,  to  that  peculiar 
institution  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  by  which  He  communicates 
Himself  to  His  members. 

The  two  earliest  writers  who  are  referred  to  by  Johnson,  as 
identifying  this  passage  with  a  prediction  of  the  Holy  Eucharist, 
are  St.  Ignatius  and  St.  Irenteus.'  Both  of  them  dwell  on  the 
truth  that  Our  Lord's  Body,  as  communicated  in  the  Holy 
Eucharist,  is  the  renewing  principle  by  which  His  people  are  to 
be  quickened,  both  in  body  and  soul.    The  Holy  Eucharist,  says 

'  Unbloody  Sacrifice,  cap.  ii.  sec.  v.  vol.  i.  p.  496.     Anglo-Catli.  Lib. 


BY  ST.  JOHN  VI.  139 

St.  Ignatius,  is  "  the  medicine  of  immortality,"  ^  and  St.  Irengeus 
speaks  of  it  as  the  cause  of  the  resurrection.^  It  is  usual  with 
these  writers,  especially  with  the  former,  to  refer  to  Scriptural 
statements,  without  quoting  their  exact  words ;  and  such  is  the 
course  adopted  in  the  present  instance  ;  but,  as  Johnson  observes, 
this  line  of  thought  could  be  suggested  only  by  the  6th  of 
St.  John.  "Waterland,  however,  objects  that  such  an  idea  might 
be  drawn  from  the  statement  of  St.  Paul,  1  Cor,  x.  16.  But 
the  expressions  of  both  these  writers  are  directly  founded  upon 
the  words  of  St.  John,  whei'eas  their  connexion  with  those  of 
St.  Paul  is  extremely  remote.  And  were  it  otherwise,  the 
suggestion  of  "Waterland  implies  everything  which  Johnson  is 
interested  to  establish.  For  if  St.  Ignatius  and  St.  Irengeus 
allow  Our  Lord's  Humanity  to  be  the  medium  through  which 
His  spiritual  blessings  are  communicated,  and  that  the  Holy 
Eucharist  is  the  occasion  on  which  this  gift  is  imparted,  they 
adopt  the  system  which  those  who  deny  that  Our  Lord  was 
speaking  in  this  place  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  are  designing  to 
refute.  For  there  are  two  main  systems,  according  to  which  it 
is  supposed  that  spiritual  gifts  are  communicated.  The  one 
imj)lies  that  blessings  are  bestowed  by  God  upon  men  by  indivi- 
dual gift,  as  a  consequence  indeed  of  Christ's  death,  but  through  \ 
that  separate  process  whereby  the  Almighty  holds  communion 
with  each  man's  spirit.  The  other  supposes  all  blessings  to  be 
embodied  in  the  Humanity  of  the  "Word,  and  from  Him  to  be 
extended  to  His  members.  It  is  from  an  unwillingness  to  admit 
this  last  truth,  that  the  application  of  the  6th  of  St.  John  to  the 
Holy  Eucharist  has  been  disputed.  For  here  the  process  is 
more  clearly  laid  down  than  in  any  other  part  of  Holy  Scripture. 
We  have  first  the  grand  truth  that  the  "Word  is  the  medium 
through  which  the  Deity  communicates  Himself  to  His  creatures, 
and  that  this  communication  takes  jAs^ce  through  His  coming 
down  upon  earth,  and  manifesting  Himself  among  men.  And 
then  it  is  added,  vv.  51-58,  that  to  partake  of  His  sacred  Flesh 

■■  Ad  Ephes.  sec.  20 ;  vide  also  Ad  Smyrnseos,  sec.  7. 
°  Book  V.  sec.  ii.  2,  3. 


140  EEAL  PRESENCE  TAUGHT 

is  the  method  by  which  men  enter  into  relation  with  Him,  just 
as  by  birth  men  partake  of  that  old  nature  which  has  been 
transmitted  to  us  by  Adam.  Now  those  who  accept  the  fact 
which  is  here  laid  down,  will  feel  little  interest  in  denying  that 
it  is  revealed  in  St.  John's  Gospeh  If  men  seek  another  inter- 
pretation of  these  words,  it  is  because  they  dispute  the  doctrine 
conveyed  in  them.  For  this  doctrine  is  so  momentous,  and  lies 
so  completely  at  the  root  of  the  whole  Christian  system,  that  if 
it  be  real,  nothing  can  be  more  pi'obable  than  that  it  should 
have  been  announced  by  Our  Lord.  So  that  since  St.  Ignatius 
and  St.  Irenaeus  certainly  tauglit  this  doctrine,  how  could  they 
fail  to  connect  it  with  St.  John's  words  ? 

As  we  advance  further,  we  find  hardly  a  single  ^vriter  of  con- 
sequence, by  whom  this  chapter  is  not  connected  with  the  Holy 
Eucharist.  It  is  so  by  Tertullian,  who  establishes  the  relation 
of  "  our  daily  bread  "  with  this  Sacrament,  by  referring  to  Our 
Lord's  words,  "  I  am  the  bread  of  life."  '  St.  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria quotes  some  of  Our  Lord's  memorable  expressions,  as  in- 
troductory to  a  mention  of  the  Holy  Eucharist :  "  The  Lord 
provides  for  us  food  from  Himself.  He  offers  flesh,  and  pours 
forth  blood,  and  nothing  is  wanting  to  the  children's  growth."  '^ 
St.  Cyprian  founds  his  remarks  on  the  Holy  Eucharist  upon  the 
fact  that  "  Our  Lord  Himself  preached  and  warned,  '  I  am  the 
bread  of  life  which  came  down  from  heaven.' "  ^  St.  Cyril  of 
Jerusalem  in  like  manner  rests  his  intei-pretation  of  this  sacra- 
ment upon  what  was  "  said  by  Christ  on  a  certain  occasion  dis- 
coursing with  the  Jews."  *  St.  Hilary  says,  when  treating  of 
the  Holy  Eucharist,  "  thei'e  is  no  room  for  doubting  about  the 
truth  of  His  Flesh  and  Blood,"  because  Christ  "  Himself  says, 
'  My  Flesh  is  meat  indeed,  and  My  Blood  is  drink  indeed.' " '' 

The  only  thing  which  can  be  set  against  these  decisive  state- 
ments is,  that  some  ancient  writers  speak  of  the  Body  and  Blood 
of  Christ  in  connexion   with  that  spiritual  communion   with 

'  De  Oratione,  6.  *  Paedagogus,  i.  vi.  p.  123.     (Potter.) 

^  De  Oratione  Dominica,  p.  192.  '  Myst.  Cat.  iv.  4. 

^  De  Trinitate,  viii.  14.  p.  955. 


BY  ST.  JOHN  VI.  141 

Himself,  as  the  source  of  truth  and  knowledge,  which  is  not 
limited  to  those  occasions  on  which  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  ad- 
ministered. The  most  explicit  passages  which  Whitby  can  cite 
are  four,  which  he  refers  respectively  to  St.  Jerome,  St.  Athana- 
sius,  Eusebius,  and  Origen.  The  first  passage  may  be  dismissed 
as  being  sj)urious :  and  the  two  last  could  not  be  of  great  weight, 
because  derived  from  authors  of  dubious  authority.  But  more 
may  be  said  than  this.  For  it  must  be  remembered  that  the 
sixth  chapter  of  St.  John  speaks  of  two  things :  one,  that  Me- 
diatorial function,  whereby  Our  Lord  reveals  Himself  as  the 
principle  of  life  to  men ;  the  other,  the  communication  of  His 
Elesh  and  Blood,  as  the  means  whereby  His  gifts  are  imparted. 
Now  it  has  never  been  disputed  that  Our  Lord  may  communi- 1 
cate  Himself  when  and  how  He  will,  and  that  where  men  are  \ 
devout  members  of  Him  by  saci-amental  communion,  He  renders  I 
their  whole  life  a  continual  union  with  Himself.  As  to  partake  1 
Christ  sacramentally,  without  faith,  would  not  be  profitable,  so 
faithful  men,  who  are  debai'red  the  Holy  Eucharist,  are  perpe- 
tually partakers  of  Him.  "  Quidam  non  manducantes  mandu- 
cant :  quidam  manducantes  non  manducant."  This  circumstance 
supplies  a  reason  why  Our  Lord's  Flesh  and  Blood  are  spoken 
of,  without  making  it  necessary  to  resort  to  the  strange  notion, 
that  these  terms  are  fit  metaphors  for  expressing  His  doctrines, 
His  grace,  or  His  favour.  Between  Christ  and  His  members 
there  is  a  personal  relation ;  from  Him  flows  all  grace,  which 
is  received  by  them  with  all  thankfulness.  The  Holy  Eucharist 
is  the  appointed  mean  by  which  this  union  is  maintained ;  and 
therefore  when  men  are  unavoidably  debarred  the  jirivilege  of 
sacramental  communion,  the  Eucharist  may  very  naturally  be 
referred  to,  as  indicating  the  nature  and  course  of  that  benefit 
which  it  pleases  God  to  bestow  through  extraordinary  channels. 
This  is  only  to  say  that  though  the  res  sacramenti  is  the  ap- 
pointed mean  of  conveying  the  virtus  sacramenti,  yet  virtue 
issues  from  Our  Lord  as  the  fountain  of  grace,  in  any  manner 
which  pleases  Him.  When  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  are 
spoken  of,  as  imparted  to  those  who  in  this  extraordinary  man- 


142  REAL  PRESENCE  TAUGHT 

ner  are  brought  into  relation  to  Christ,  it  is  not  because  Flesh 
and  Blood  are  employed  as  metaphorical  terms  for  expressing 
grace  or  doctrines,  but  because  the  Holy  Eucharist,  being  the 
Sacrament  of  Christ's  Flesh  and  Blood,  suggests  the  order  in 
which  other  gifts  are  communicated.  So  that  such  expressions, 
instead  of  excluding  the  Holy  Eucharist,  imj^ly  that  it  is  refer- 
red to,  since  it  supplies  the  gi'oundwork  out  of  which  they  are 
constructed. 

These  I'emarks  are  applicable  in  a  great  measure  to  the  pas- 
sages quoted  by  Whitby.  When  Origen  says,  referring  to  St. 
John  vi.  64,  that  "  we  are  stated  to  di-ink  the  Blood  of  Christ, 
not  merely  in  the  use  of  sacraments,  but  also  when  we  receive 
His  words,  m  which  our  life  consists,"  ^  he  is  referring  plainly 
to  the  Holy  Eucharist,  though  he  supposes  the  chapter  to  speak 
also  of  that  personal  relation  to  Christ  which  the  Divine  Medi- 
ator can  bring  about  without  the  use  of  instruments.  And  this 
is  all  which  he  or  the  other  two  writers  can  be  intending,  be- 
cause all  three  of  them  contain  express  statements  that  the  Holy 
Eucbarist  is  referred  to  in  this  Chai:)ter.  The  passage  which 
Whitby  cites  from  Eusebius  ^  is  neutralized  by  another  from  the 
commentary  of  the  same  writer  on  Isaiah,'  in  which  he  quotes 
Our  Lord's  words  in  direct  connexion  with  the  Holy  Eucharist. 
And  so  Origen,  in  another  part  of  his  commentary  on  Numbers : 
"  then  the  Manna  was  a  typical  food,  but  now  the  Flesh  of  the 
Word  of  God  is  exhibited  as  true  food,  as  He  Himself  also  says, 
for  '  My  Flesh  is  meat  indeed,  and  My  Blood  is  drink  indeed.' "  * 
So  likewise  the  passage  which  is  quoted  by  Whitby  '  from  St. 
Athanasius,  is  interpreted  by  another  statement  of  that  Father: 
"  Our  Lord  has  taught  us  in  His  prayer  to  seek  while  we  are  in 
this  world  for  the  siiper-subsiafitial  bread,  that  is,  for  the  bread 
which  shall  be  hereafter;  of  which  we  have  the  first-fruit  in  this 


'   In  Numeros,  Horn.  xvi.  9,  vol.  ii.  p.  334. 
'■^  De  Ecclesiastica  Tlieolog-ia,  iii.  1'2,  j).  180. 
•'  Montfaucoii's  CoUectio  Nova,  vol.  ii.  p.  586. 
■•  Horn.  vii.  iu  Num.  2,  vol.  ii.  p.  '2S)(). 
*  Ep.  ad.  Scrap,  iv.  IK,  vol.  ii.  p.  710. 


BY  ST.  JOHN  VI.  143 

present  life,  when  we  partake  the  Flesh  of  Our  Lord,  as  He 
Himself  said,  '  the  bread  which  I  will  give  is  My  Flesh,  which 
I  will  give  for  the  life  of  the  world.'  "  ^ 

Another  author  may  be  referred  to,  as  a  proof  that  the  ex- 
pressions of  ancient  writers  are  to  be  understood  according  to 
their  general  sentiments.  St.  Basil,  in  one  passage  ^  of  his  works, 
goes  further  almost  than  anyone  in  identifying  Our  Lord's  Flesh 
and  Blood  rather  with  His  benefits  in  general,  than  with  that 
particular  communication  of  Himself  which  is  bestowed  in  the 
Holy  Eucharist.  Yet  elsewhere  no  one  is  more  distinct  in  as- 
serting that  Our  Lord's  words  refer  to  the  Holy  Eucharist.  "  It 
is  good  and  profitable  to  communicate  daily,  and  to  be  a  partaker 
of  the  sacred  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  inasmuch  as  He  Him- 
self says  distinctly,  '  he  who  eateth  My  Flesh,  and  drinketh  My 
Blood,  hath  eternal  life. ' "  ^  And  he  quotes  *  the  fifty-third  and 
fifty-fourth  verses,  as  supplying  a  rule  for  those  who  come  to  the 
Holy  Eucharist. 

There  is  no  ground  at  all,  then,  for  Whitby's  assertion,  that 
his  theory  had  supporters  in  the  ancient  Church.  The  great 
mass  of  authors  connect  the  mention  of  Our  Lord's  Flesh  and 
Blood  with  the  Holy  Eucharist  exclusively,  and  those  who  oc- 
casionally apply  them  more  loosely,  have  been  shown  not  to 
exclude  this  primary  interpretation.  Hence  Waterland  has  in- 
troduced another  theory,  by  way  of  neutralizing  testimonies  too 
direct  and  numerous  to  be  disputed.  He  maintains  that  the 
thing  referred  to  in  this  chapter  is  not  the  Holy  Eucharist,  but 
the  general  benefits  which  are  bestowed  by  Christ,  of  which  this 
sacrament  is  only  a  particular  channel.  Now  it  has  been  shown 
that  the  sixth  chapter  of  St.  John  consists  of  two  parts — first, 
we  have  a  general  statement  of  Our  Lord's  Mediation,  vv.  30-50, 
and  then  a  declaration  that  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  the  medium 
through  which  its  benefits  are  communicated,  vv.  51-58.  But 
Waterland's  theory  makes  no  account  of  the  latter  set  of  ex- 

^  De  Incam.  et  contra  Arian.,  xvi.  vol.  ii.  p.  883. 

^  Epis.  viii.  4,  vol.  iii.  p.  84.  ^  Epis.  xciii.  vol.  iii.  p.  186. 

■•  Initium  Moralium,  Eegula  21.  1,  vol.  ii.  p.  253. 


144  REAL  PRESENCE  TAUGHT 

pressions,  and  therefore  is  less  satisfactory  even  than  that  of 
Whitby,  wliich  attempts,  however  inadequately,  to  grapple 
with  the  difficulties  of  the  case ;  whereas  "Waterland  gives 
no  reason  why  the  ancient  writers '  should  have  considered 
these  words  to  be  so  plainly  relevant  to  the  Holy  Eucharist 
that  they  almost  invai-iably  quote  them  in  this  relation.  How 
came  they  thus  to  employ  them,  unless  they  supposed  that  this 
was  the  natural  force  of  the  words :  or  how  could  they  venture 
to  give  this  meaning  to  Our  Lord's  words,  unless  such  had  been 
their  received  interpretation  ?  Indeed,  Waterland  himself  does 
not  absolutely  deny  that  Our  Lord  may  have  referred  to  the 
Holy  Eucharist ;  and  it  is  obvious  that  the  terms  employed 
would  not  have  been  a  natural  mode  of  expressing  the  general 
benefits  which  He  bestows,  unless  the  Holy  Eucharist  had  been 
the  appointed  medium  of  conveying  them, 

Waterland's  theory,  however,  could  never  have  been  in- 
troduced, were  it  not  that  in  the  earliest  ages  we  have  no 
direct  commentary  upon  this  Chapter,  and  consequently  have 
no  detailed  explanation  of  the  purpose  with  which  Our  Lord 
spoke.  And  therefore  his  theory  falls  to  the  gi'ound  at  once, 
when  we  come  to  those  writers  who  have  occasion  to  explain 
at  length  what  was  believed  to  be  Our  Lord's  intention.  The 
first  of  these  is  St.  Chrysostom ;  whose  commentary  is  most 
distinct  in  its  statements,  that  from  the  51st  verse,  where 
Our  Lord  introduces  the  subject  of  His  Body  and  Blood, 
He  is  referring  immediately  to  the  Holy  Eucharist.  The 
earlier  part  of  the  Chapter,  St.  Chrysostom  says,  may  be  ex- 
jilained   in   general   of   those   blessings   which    were   bestowed 

^  In  addition  to  tliose  already  quoted,  vide  S.  Gregory  Nyssen  contra 
Eiinoin.  Or.  xi.  vol.  ii.  p.  704.  lb.  in  Ecclesias.  Horn.  viii.  vol.  i.  457. 
Julius  Finnicus  de  Errore  Prof.  Ixel.  19.  Bib.  Pat.  iv.  171.  S.  Ambros. 
de  Fide,  iv.  124,  vol.  ii.  543.  lb.  de  Benedict.  Patriar.  ix.  39,  vol.  i.  525. 
lb.  in  Psalm  118,  Seruio  18.  28,  vol.  i.  1203.  S.  Gaudentius,  Trac.  2,  ad 
Neopli.  P.ib.  Pat.  v.  946.  Maximns  Taurin.  Horn.  xlv.  p.  138.  S.  Jerome 
on  Ephes.  cap.  i.  vol.  iv.  part  i.  p.  828.  Theophilus  Lib.  Pascbalis  II.  in 
S.  Jerome,  vol.  iv.  part  ii.  p.  714.  S.  Epiphanius  ad  Haer.  ii.  1,  6.  S. 
Macarius,  Horn.  iv.  12,  Gallandi,  vol.  vii.  10.  TLeodoret  Hist.  Eccles. 
iv.  11. 


BY  ST.  JOHN  VI.  145 

by  the  Mediator.  "The  bread  of  life  is  Our  Lord's  salutary 
doctrine,  and  faith  in  Himself,  or  His  own  Body."  ^  These 
things  are  all  involved  in  the  system  of  the  Gospel  when 
viewed  at  large.  But  when  he  comes  to  the  51st  verse,^ 
he  thinks  it  necessary  to  account  for  the  fact,  that  Our  Lord 
should  have  spoken  of  a  topic  which  at  the  time  it  was  not 
possible  for  His  hearers  to  understand.  And  the  purpose  of 
that  Holy  Sacrament,  to  which  he  says  Our  Lord  is  here 
referring,  is  explained  thus :  "  I  have  become  a  partaker  of 
Flesh  and  Blood  for  your  sakes ;  again  that  very  Flesh  and 
Blood  by  which  I  have  become  akin  to  you  I  give  back  .to 
you."  ^  To  show  the  full  force  of  his  comment  it  would  be 
necessary  to  transcribe  it  all.  A  few  words  from  the  con- 
clusion of  it  may  suffice  : — 

"  What,  then  ;  is  not  His  Flesh  flesh  ?  Certainly  it  is.  "What 
does  He  mean  then  by  saying,  that  flesh  profiteth  nothing  ? 
He  does  not  speak  about  His  own  Flesh.  God  forbid.  But 
He  speaks  about  those  who  receive  what  is  sj)oken  in  a  fleshly 
manner.  Now  what  is  it  to  understand  the  thing  in  a  fleshly 
manner  ?  It  is  to  look  simply  at  that  which  lies  before  us, 
and  not  to  conceive  of  anything  beyond.  This  is  to  look  at 
things  in  a  fleshly  manner.  For  we  ought  not  to  judge  only 
by  what  is  visible,  but  to  discern  all  mysteries  with  our  inner 
eyes,  that  is  to  say,  sjDiritually.  Is  it  not  so,  that  unless  a 
man  eats  His  Flesh,  and  drinks  His  Blood,  he  hath  no  life 
in  him?  How,  then,  can  it  be  said  that  the  flesh  profiteth 
nothing,  without  which  we  cannot  live  ?  You  see  that  the 
words,  the  flesh  pi'ofiteth  nothing,  are  not  spoken  of  His  Flesh, 
but  of  the  hearing  Him  in  a  fleshly  manner."  * 

The  next  commentator,  St.  Augustin,  assumes,  as  St.  Chry- 
sostom  did,  that  this  Chapter  refers  to  the  Holy  Eucharist. 
There  are  expressions  in  his  Commentary,  respecting  which 
something  shall  be  said  presently,  which  are  capable  of  being 
understood  in  a  Calvinistic  sense,  but  not  a  word  occurs  which 
implies  him  to  have  doubted  that  Our  Lord  designed  to  speak 

^  S.  Chrys.  in  Joan.  Horn.  xlvi.  1,  vol.  viii.  p.  270. 
2  Id.  p.  271.  3  Id.  p.  273. 

*  Id.  Horn,  xlvii.  sec.  2,  p.  278. 
L 


146  REAL  PRESENCE  TAUGHT 

respecting  the  Holy  Eucharist.  When  he  comes  to  the  51st 
verse,  he  notices  and  accounts  for  the  fact  that  Our  Lord 
left  the  Jews  in  ignorance  respecting  the  nature  of  that  spiri- 
tual food  which  His  Church  was  to  receive  through  this 
sacrament : 

" '  If  any  man  eat  of  this  hread  he  shall  live  for  ever ;  and 
the  bread  which  I  will  give  is  My  Flesh,  which  I  will  give 
for  the  life  of  the  world.'  How  should  fleshly  people  under- 
stand this,  in  that  He  calls  bread  by  the  name  of  flesh  ?  That 
is  called  flesh,  which  the  flesh  cannot  receive ;  and  the  reason 
why  the  flesh  cannot  receive  it,  is  because  it  is  called  flesh. 
For  they  were  horrified  at  this ;  they  thought  it  a  hard  say- 
ing ;  they  supposed  it  impossible.  The  faithful  know  what 
is  meant  by  the  Body  of  Christ,  if  so  be  that  to  Christ's  Body 
they  neglect  not  to  pertain."  Whereas  the  Jews,  he  goes 
on  to  say,  were  ignorant  "  how  He  was  to  be  eaten,  and  what 
was  to  be  the  manner  of  eating  that  bread."  ^ 

Another  Father  who  has  left  a  lengthened  commentary  on 
this  Chapter,  is  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria.  His  statements  are 
not  only  important,  from  the  full  and  distinct  manner  in  which 
they  express  his  own  opinion,  but  also  because  his  explanation 
of  this  Chapter  was  sanctioned  by  the  authority  of  the  Third 
General  Council.  He  seems,  like  other  ancient  Avriters,  to 
liave  taken  entirely  for  granted  that  Our  Lord  was  referring 
to  the  Holy  Eucharist.  "  What  is  it  which  Christ  promises  ? 
Nothing  corruptible,  but  rather  that  Eucharist  which  Ues  in 
the  reception   of   His    sacred  Flesh  and  Blood,  whereby  man 

obtains   the   gift   of   immortality The    sacred  Body  of 

Christ  gives  life  to  those  in  whom  it  is,  and  preserves  them 
for  immortality,  by  being  mixed  with  our  bodies.  For  it  is 
understood  not  to  be  the  Body  of  any  one  else  than  of  Him, 
who  is  naturally  life,  having  in  itself  the  whole  power  of  the 
Word  who  has  been  made  one  with  it."  '^ 

Again,  after  referring  to  various  ancient  miracles,  and  ob- 

>  S.  August,  in  Joan.  Tract,  xxvi.  13,  15,  pp.  499,  500. 

*  b.  Cyri   in  Joan.  lib.  iii.  6,  vol.  iv.  p.  324.     (On  verse  35.) 


BY  ST.  JOHN  VI.  147 

serving  that  these  events  ought  to  have  taught  the  Jews  that 
God's  dealings  are  above  our  comprehension,  he  remarks  upon 
the  54th  verse : 

"  These  statements  may  show  us  Our  Lord's  long-suffering, 
and  the  abundance  of  His  mercy.  For  without  taking  offence 
at  the  narrow-mindedness  of  the  unbelievers,  He  gives  them 
again  in  full  measure  the  life-giving  knowledge  of  His  mystery. 

In  what  way  He  will  give  them  His  flesh  to  eat, 

He  does  not  yet  teach,  for  He  knew  them  to  be  as  yet  in 
darkness,  and  not  yet  strong  enough  for  the  mystery.  But 
very  seasonably  He  shows  them  what  blessings  will  arise 
to  them  from  eating,  that  perhaps  He  might  teach  them  how 
to  believe,  by  infusing  into  them  a  desire  to  live,  through  a 
sense  of  its  unbounded  happiness.  For  if  they  only  beheved, 
to  understand  would  soon  follow.  For  so  says  the  Prophet 
Isaias,  '  if  you  will  not  believe,  you  shall  not  understand.' 
Faith,  therefore,  must  first  be  rooted  in  them,  and  then  would 
come  an  understanding  of  the  things  of  which  they  are  igno- 
rant ;  and  inquiry  must  not  precede  faith.  Therefore  I  suppose 
Our  Lord  omits  to  tell  them  in  what  manner  He  will  give 
them  His  Flesh  to  eat,  and  calls  upon  them  to  believe  pre- 
viously to  investigation.  For  when  He  spoke  to  those  who 
already  believed,  He  took  bread  and  brake,  and  gave  it  to 
them,  saying.  Take,  eat,  this  is  My  Body.  In  like  manner 
giving  the  cup  to  all  of  them,  He  said.  Take,  and  drink  ye 
all  of  this,  for  this  is  My  Blood  of  the  testament,  which  is 
shed  for  many  for  the  remission  of  sins.  You  see  that  He 
does  not  explain  the  nature  of  the  mystery  to  those  who  were 
without  thought,  and  had  no  searchings  after  faith ;  but  to 
those  who  already  believed  He  is  found  to  have  given  a 
clear  explanation.  Let  those  hear  then,  who  from  want  of 
wisdom  have  not  yet  received  the  faith  of  Christ.  Except 
ye  shall  eat  the  flesh  of  Christ,  and  drink  His  blood,  ye  have 
no  life  in  you.  For  those  persons  are  wholly  without  share 
or  taste  of  the  life  of  holiness  and  happiness,  who  have  not 
received  the  Son  through  the  mystical  Eucharist.  For  He 
is  life  by  nature,  inasmuch  as  He  has  been  born  from  the 
living  Father.  And  His  sacred  Body  is  not  less  life-giving, 
smce  it  has  been  in  some  unsjoeakable  manner  made  one  with 
that  Word  which  gives  hfe  to  all  things."  ^ 

^  Comment,  in  Joan.  lib.  iv.  2,  vol.  iv.  p.  361. 


148  REAL  PRESENCE  TAUGHT 

The  preceding  quotations  show  that  the  only  Fathers  who 
have  left  full  explanations  of  the  sixth  Chapter  of  St.  John, 
puppoped  Our  Lord  to  have  referred  directly  to  the  Holy 
Eucharist.  It  has  been  previously  shown,  that  the  casual 
allusions  of  other  ancient  writers,  are  no  ground  for  supposing 
them  to  have  entertained  a  different  opinion,  though  the  different 
nature  of  their  sulyects  did  not  lead  them  to  such  precise 
explanations.  For  since  Our  Lord  spoke  both  of  His  ^lediation 
at  large,  and  also  of  this  particular  mean  of  profiting  by  it,  to 
accept  the  first  truth  did  not  imply  that  the  second  was 
disbelieved.  But  when  we  come  to  these  three  commentators 
we  are  left  in  no  doubt  respecting  the  prevalent  interpretation 
of  Our  Lord's  words.  The  importance,  however,  of  St.  Cyril's 
testimony  does  not  stop  here.  For  these,  it  may  be  said,  were 
but  the  statements  of  individuals,  and  may  have  failed  to 
represent  the  judgment  of  the  whole  Church.  But  St.  Cyril's 
interpretation  of  this  Chapter  was  introduced  into  the  letter, 
which  as  President  of  a  Synod  at  Alexandria,  he  addressed  to 
Nestorius,  and  which  was  read  with  approbation  at  the  Council 
of  Ephesus.  So  that  in  referring  Our  Lord's  words  to  the  Holy 
Eucharist,  we  are  not  only  boi-ne  out  by  the  private  testimony  of 
ancient  writers,  but  have  the  highest  sanction  which  can  be 
given  to  any  interpretation  of  Scripture,  in  the  approval  of  one 
of  those  General  Councils,  which  express  the  mind  of  the  Spirit 
and  the  authority  of  the  Church. 

"  "We  celebrate  the  unbloody  sacrifice  in  our  Churches ;  we 
approach  the  mystical  Eucharist  and  are  sanctified,  being  made 
partakers  of  the  sacred  Flesh  and  the  precious  Blood  of  our 
common  Saviour  Jesus  Christ.  Now  this  we  do,  not  as  though 
we  received  common  flesh.  God  forbid.  Nor  as  though  His 
Flesh  were  that  of  a  man  who  was  sanctified,  and  united  to  the 
Word  by  oneness  of  desert,  or  in  whom  God  abode  by  indwelling ; 
but  as  supposing  it  to  be  truly  life-giving,  and  really  the  Hesh 
of  the  Word  Himself.  For  being  naturally  life  as  God,  since 
He  has  become  one  with  His  own  P^lesh,  He  has  rendered  it  also 
life-giving.  So  that  when  He  says  to  us,  Verily,  verily,  I  say 
uuto  you,  '  except  ye  eat  the  Flesh  of  the  Son  of  man  and  drink 


BY  ST.  JOHN  VI.  Ud 

His  Blood,' — we  cannot  suppose  this  to  be  like  the  flesh  of  a 
man  such  as  ourselves.  For  how  should  a  man's  flesh  be 
naturally  life-giving?"^ 

The  considerations  which  have  been  alleged  are  so  decisive, 
that  it  may  well  be  asked  how  it  can  have  been  doubted  that  the 
sixth  Chapter  of  St.  John  was  designed  to  refer  to  the  Holy 
Eucharist.  Those  whom  the  words  themselves  do  not  satisfy 
of  their  mysterious  import,  might  be  expected  to  be  struck  at 
the  manner  in  which  the  Jews  received  them :  those  who  are 
less  attentive  to  the  natural  force  of  expressions  than  to  their 
traditional  import,  must  be  influenced  by  the  concurrent 
testimony  of  the  Primitive  Church.  For  while  Our  Lord's 
words  are  interpi^eted  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  by  well-nigh  every 
ancient  writer,  there  is  not  a  single  ancient  writer  by  whom  this 
interpretation  is  denied.  And  the  ancient  is  shown  to  be  the 
natural  interpretation,  because  the  various  explanations  which 
have  since  become  prevalent,  may  be  accounted  for  by  reference 
to  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  those  by  whom  they  have  been 
introduced.  They  have  originated  with  persons  who  had  a 
theory  to  support,  which  the  natural  and  received  meaning  of 
this  passage  was  thought  to  oppose.  "  In  the  middle  ages  we 
find  no  other  interpretation  than  that  of  St.  Chrysostom.  It  is 
observable  that  the  Bohemians,  following  the  traditional  apj)lica- 
tion  of  the  passage  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  deduced  from  it  the 
necessity  of  administering  the  communion  in  both  kinds."  ^  Hence 
the  received  interpretation  was  called  in  question  by  Caietan,  and 
others  after  him,  because  this  Chapter  was  used  as  an  argument 
against  them  by  the  disciples  of  Huss.  "  The  Cardinal  supposed," 
says  Johnson,  "  that  if  John  vi.  were  understood  of  the  Eucharist, 
it  would  imply  a  necessity  of  communicating  children,  which  I 
have  shown  to  be  a  groundless  supposition ;  but  that  which  I 
believe  weighed  most  with  the  Cardinal  was,  that  if  this  text 
be  understood  of  the  Eucharist,  it  will  follow  that  there  is  a 

1  Harduin,  vol.  i.  p.  1289. 

^  Vide  Liickes  Gescliichte  der  Auslegung  der  Stelle,  vi.  51,  in  his 
Commentary  on  St.  John,  vol.  ii.  p.  730. 


150  REAL  PRESENCE  TAUGHT 

necessity  of  the  Cup  as  well  as  the  Host.'"  Later  writers  in 
tlie  Roman  Obedience  have  defended  their  practice  by  reference 
to  the  doctrine  of  concomitance,  whicli  implies  Our  Lord's  Blood 
to  be  present  wherever  His  Body  is ;  and  also  by  the  example 
of  the  early  Christians,  whose  habit  was  to  receive  the  Holy 
Eucharist  in  their  houses,  under  one  kind  only ;  but  for  a  time 
Caietan's  interpretation  was  popular  with  writers  of  his  com- 
munion. But  since  it  was  obviously  an  expedient  which  was 
only  introduced  for  a  polemical  purpose,  it  cannot  pretend  to 
express  the  original  intention  of  Our  Lord's  words. 

The  same  may  be  said  of  Luther's  opposition  to  the  primitive 
interpretation.  It  was  shoAvn  (cap.  v.)  that  Luther's  theory 
united  two  incomiJatible  principles — it  asserted  the  sacredness 
of  the  Holy  Eucharist,  but  denied  its  efficacy.  It  is  manifest, 
therefore,  how  little  he  was  likely  to  sympathize  with  a  passage,^ 
the  very  jiurpose  of  which  is  to  point  out  the  efficacy  of  this 
Holy  Eeast,  and  to  show  its  relation  to  Our  Lord's  Mediation. 
It  supplied  the  quotations,  therefore,  which  were  mainly  brought 
against  him  by  his  opponents  at  Marburg :  they  took  for 
granted  that  a  person  who  admitted  the  reality  of  Our  Lord's 
Presence,  could  not  doubt  that  it  must  be  alluded  to  in  a  chapter 
in  which  it  appears  to  be  so  directly  taught.  Luther  seems  to 
have  given  some  surprise  to  his  own  partizans  by  the  manner  in 
which  he  parried  this  attack.  "  In  his  contest  %\dth  Carolstad, 
Zuinglius,  and  (Ecolampadius,  he  boldly  denied  tliat  this 
passage  had  any  relation  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  maintained 
that  it  had  reference  only  to  the  spiritual  participation  of  Christ 
by  faith  and  love." "'  Here,  then,  as  in  the  case  of  Caietan,  the 
received  interpretation  was  abandoned  for  the  sake  of  a  theory. 
Such  foi'ced  exjilanations  do- but  set  off  the  simplicity  of  that 
more  natural  ajiplication,  which  has  on  its  side  as  well  the 
obvious  force  of  the  words,  as  the  testimony  of  antiquity.    Cer- 

'  Johnson's  Unbloody  Sacrifice,  cap.  ii.  sec.  Z,  vol.  i.  p.  525. 
*  "This  passage  breaks  your  neck,"  said  Zuinglius  to  Luther  in  the 
Conference  at  Marburg. — Ehrard,  vol.  ii.  323. 
■'  Liicke,  ubi  sup.  p.  730. 


BY  ST.  JOHN  VI.  151 

talnly,  if  St.  John  did  not  design  to  refer  to  the  Holy  Eucharist 
when  he  recorded  this  discourse  of  Our  Lord,  his  Gospel  must 
be  unintelligible  to  simple  readers,  since  they  could  not  fail  to 
attribute  this  sense  to  his  words.  So  that  this  is  an  instance  in 
which  the  first  and  plainest  interpretation  can  make  its  appeal 
to  present  reason  as  confidently  as  to  the  authority  of  the  past. 

So  much  respecting  a  subject  which  required  to  be  considered 
at  large,  not  so  much  on  account  of  its  ambiguity  as  of  its 
importance.  For  though  other  passages  of  Holy  Scripture  speak 
plainly  respecting  the  truth  of  Our  Lord's  Presence,  there  is  none 
which  dwells  with  equal  fulness  on  its  efficacy.  "We  must- now 
proceed  to  show  that,  allowing  this  chapter  to  contain  a 
prophetical  allusion  to  the  Holy  Eucharist,  it  will  follow  that 
Our  Lord's  Presence  is  real,  and  not  merely  symbolical  or 
virtual.  And  this  will  be  rendered  more  manifest,  by  observing 
the  consistency  of  this  passage  with  those  other  statements  that 
Our  Lord  is  present  sujpernaturally,  and  sacramentally,  of  which 
His  Real  Presence  has  been  shown  to  be  the  result. 

Now,  that  Our  Lord's  Presence  is  supernatural,  is  the  truth 
affirmed  by  Himself  in  the  sixty-third  verse  of  the  sixth 
chapter  of  St.  John.  "  It  is  the  Spirit  that  quickeneth ;  the 
flesh  profiteth  nothing :  the  words  that  I  speak  unto  you,  they 
are  spii-it,  and  they  are  life."  He  affirms,  that  the  instruction 
which  He  communicated  to  His  hearers  was  something 
borrowed  from  that  principle  of  spiritual  life,  which  in  His 
Manhood  had  come  personally  into  the  world.  For  "  in  Him 
was  life,  and  the  life  was  the  light  of  men."  The  meaning  of 
this  verse  is  not,  as  some  have  imagined,  that  Our  Lord  has 
really  no  share  in  man's  sanctification — that  great  work  belonging 
exclusively  to  the  Third  Person  in  the  Blessed  Trinity — for,  as 
will  be  shown  in  a  subsequent  chapter,  the  functions  of  these 
Blessed  Persons  are  coincident,  and  not  successive ;  so  that  the 
one  mercifully  co-operates,  according  to  the  order  of  His  office, 
in  that  which  is  performed  by  the  other.  By  spirit,  then,  in 
this  place,  is  meant  Our  Lord's  Divine,  as  opposed  to  His 
human  nature :    He  explains   to   His  wondering  disciples  that 


162  REAL  PRESENCE  TAUGHT 

those  miraculous  effects  wlilcli  were  to  attend  the  reception  of 
His  Flesh  and  Blood,  would  not  arit^e  from  their  natural 
iufluence,  hut  from  that  supernatui'al  efficacy  with  which  they 
were  endowed,  by  means  of  their  Personal  oneness  with  His 
Godhead.  "The  word  *9pm7  in  Our  Lord,"  says  Bishop  Bull, 
"  is  uniformly  employed  in  Holy  Scripture  and  in  the  writers  of 
the  first  age,  to  exjDress  that  Divine  nature  in  Himself,  to  which 
it  jiroperly  pertained  to  give  life  to  mortals."'  So  that  the 
truth  here  revealed  is,  that  Our  Lord's  Manhood  was  to  be  the 
principle  of  life,  by  reason  of  that  Godhead  with  which  it  was 
united.  This  statement  was  not  intended,  then,  to  detract  from 
the  reality  of  those  functions  which  were  to  be  discharged  by 
His  Flesh  and  Blood,  but  only  to  explain  the  principle  and 
cause  of  their  efficacy.  And  therefore  Our  Lord  refers  to  the 
exaltation  of  His  glorified  Body  into  heaven,  as  a  sign  of  those 
new  qualities  with  wliich  it  was  to  be  invested.  "  If  you 
suppose  that  My  Flesh  cannot  give  you  life,  how  can  it  ascend 
like  a  winged  thing  into  heaven  ?  For  if  it  is  not  able  to  give 
life,  because  it  has  no  natural  tendency  to  do  so,  how  can  it 
tread  upon  the  air,  and  ascend  into  heaven  ?  For  this  is  equally 
imjjossible  to  flesh.  But  if  it  ascends,  contrary  to  the  law  of 
nature,  what  is  to  hinder  it  from  giving  life,  though  it  has  no 
tendency  to  do  so  by  its  own  nature?  For  He  who  has  made 
tluit  heavenly,  which  belongs  to  the  earth,  can  enable  it  also  to 
give  life,  though  by  its  own  nature  it  tends  to  corruption."'^ 

These  words,  then,  exjiress  distinctly  that  Our  Lord's 
Presence  is  supenuitural ;  that  His  Body  and  Blood  are  not 
present  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  according  to  that  law  or  in  that 
manner  under  which  flesh  and  blood  usually  exist,  and  in  which 
we  suppose  His  glorified  form  to  exist  in  heaven.  And  other 
portions  of  the  same  passage  tell  us  that  Our  Lord's  Presence  is 
Real,  as  well  as  supernatural.  Such  is  the  fifty-fifth  verse — 
"  My  Flesh  is  meat  indeed,  and  My  Blood  is  drink  indeed."   "  A 

'  De  Necessitate  Credendi,  v.  5,  p.  38.  And  so  "  irvtvua  (prjaly  iavrov.'^ 
—S.  Cyril,  iv.  376. 

-  y.  Cyril  in  Joan.  lib.  iv.  8  (on  verse  62),  vol.  iv.  p.  375. 


BY  ST.  JOHN  VI.  153 

true  exposition,"  says  Olshausen,  "which  gives  the  meaning  of 
the  text  before  us,  must  confess,  however  alien  may  be  the 
result  from  its  own  views,  that  Our  Lord  is  unquestionably 
speaking  here  about  the  participation  of  His  Humanity."  Our 
Lord's  Presence  cannot  therefore  be  supposed  to  be  merely 
symbolical  or  figurative :  something  more  must  be  designed 
than  that  He  is  an  object  for  the  thoughts  of  mankind.  But  a 
still  more  important  verse  is  the  fifty-seventh,  in  which  Our 
Lord  is  pleased  to  express  the  reality  of  that  gift  which  He 
bestows  upon  His  people,  by  a  measure  drawn  from  the  highest 
of  all  rules — the  blessed  Trinity  itself.  "  As  the  living  Father 
hath  sent  Me,  and  I  live  by  the  Father,  so  he  that  eateth  Me, 
even  he  shall  live  by  Me." 

The  relation  of  Our  Lord  to  the  Father  is  here  expressed  in 
two  ways :  first,  by  that  temporal  mission  into  the  world,  which 
took  place  in  the  moment  of  His  Incarnation ;  secondly,  by  re- 
ference to  that  eternal  relation  whereby  the  perfections  of  the 
eternal  Father  are  perpetually  communicated  to  His  co-equal 
Son.  For  the  name  of  Only-begotten  Son  belongs  to  Our  Lord, 
because  He  is  the  express  image  and  effulgence  of  the  eternal 
Father ;  because  as  the  Father  is  God,  so  the  Son  by  natural 
right  is  God  also.  Our  Lord  is  pleased  to  declare,  then,  that  as 
life  is  inherent  in  His  Godhead,  because  it  flows  into  Him  ac- 
cording to  that  eternal  law  whereby  He  is  naturally  the  Son  of 
the  Father :  so  does  He  impart  it  in  like  mysterious  manner  to 
those  who,  by  the  communication  of  His  Manhood,  are  one  with 
Himself.  "  If  I,"  He  says,  "  have  become  flesh  (for  this,  He 
means,  by  His  being  sent),  and  as  I  live  through  the  living 
Father  (that  is,  by  retaining  the  nature  of  Him  who  begot  Me 
in  Myself),  even  so  he,  who  through  the  reception  of  My  Flesh 
receives  Me,  shall  live  in  himself ;  being  altogether  transformed 
into  Me,  who  am  able  to  engender,  because  I  spring  from  a  life- 
giving  root,  that  is,  from  God  the  Father."  ^     So  that  the  gift 

^  S.  Cyril  in  Joan.  lib.  iv.  3,  vol.  iv.  p.  366.  S.  Ambrose  says,  in 
reference  to  the  same  passage,  "  Similitudo  etiam  nostra  ad  Filium,  et 
qusedam  secundmn  carnem  unitas  declaratur;    quoniam  quemadmodum 


154  REAL  PRESENCE  TAUGHT 

"which  Our  Lord,  as  man,  imparts  to  His  people,  is  in  some  sort 
a  measure  of  tliat  which,  as  God,  He  hath  eternally  from  tlie 
Father.  And  hence,  doubtless,  arose  the  statements  of  the 
ancient  Churcli,  that  Our  Lord  bestows  Himself  substantially  in 
the  Holy  Eucharist,  inasmuch  as  to  be  of  one  substance  with 
the  Father,  is  the  characteristic  of  His  Godhead.  So  that  no 
exjDressions  whicli  refer  only  to  the  actions  of  a  'power  which 
emanates  from  Him,  or  which  represent  Him  as  only  virtually 
present,  can  come  up  to  the  full  force  of  His  own  merciful  de- 
claration. It  is  possible  indeed  that  the  Power  and  Substance 
of  the  Supreme  Being  may  in  some  unknown  manner  be  identi- 
cal, so  that  His  dynamic  may  be  equivalent  to  His  substantial 
presence.  But  when  Our  Lord's  virtual  is  opposed  to  His  real 
presence,  it  must  be  imagined  that  there  is  some  diversity  be- 
tween them ;  so  that  the  analogy  must  be  supposed  to  be  drawn 
from  those  material  bodies,  the  effect  of  wliich  can  be  discrimi- 
nated from  themselves.  Now  no  illusti'utions  drawn  from  material 
objects  can  express  the  full  truth  whicli  Our  Lord  has  been 
pleased  to  reveal.  The  sun,  to  speak  popularly,  is  present 
throughout  sjiace  by  the  power  of  its  rays;  yet  its  rays  are 
something  different  from  the  orb  itself.  They  are,  it  may  be, 
the  effect  of  its  heat  and  lustre :  but  so  soon  as  they  are  shot 
forth  they  are  detached  and  distinct  from  the  body  whence  they 
proceed.  But  if  Our  Lord's  Presence  is  dynamic,  it  is  because 
it  is  substantial:  it  is  nothing  which  can  be  detached  fi'om  Him- 
self; it  is  the  Presence  of  a  Person,  not  the  effect  of  a  power. 
As  His  Godhead  flows  into  Him  by  necessary  derivation  from 
His  eternal  Father,  so  does  He  assure  us  that  He  communicates 
His  Manhood  by  merciful  gift  to  His  earthly  brethren.'  Thus 
are  there  three  stages  in  this  great  work.  Tlie  Godhead  im- 
parts Itself  to  the  co-equal  Son.  This  is  His  eternal  generation. 
The  Son  unites  Himself  to  man's  nature.     This  is  His  lucarna- 

Dei  Filius  a  Patre,  sic  homo  est  vivificatus  in  came." — Pe  Fide,  b.  iv. 
cap.  10,  128. 

'   "  Vivit  per  Patrem,  et  quo  modo  per  Patreui  vivit,  eodeui  inodo  noa 
per  camein  ejus  vivimus." — 6'.  Ililary  de  Triidt.  viii.  16,  p.  957. 


BY  ST.  JOHN  VI.  155 

tion.  He  communicates  His  Manhood  to  His  brethren.  This 
is  His  real  Presence  in  the  Holy  Eucharist.  As  the  first,  then, 
is  the  communication  of  that  substance  which  is  common  to  the 
Three  Persons  in  the  blessed  Godhead,  so  is  the  last  the  sub- 
stantial communication  of  that  manhood  which  has  been  hal- 
lowed by  the  taking  it  into  God. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence  was  said  to  involve  one 
further  point — that  Our  Lord's  Presence  is  Sacramental.  Now 
it  will  be  found  that  this  expression  not  only  accords  with  the 
statements  of  the  Chapter  before  us,  but  that  it  supplies  the  key 
to  difficulties,  by  which  it  would  otherwise  be  perplexed.  A 
difficulty  presents  itself  in  the  fifty-first  and  following  verses, 
from  the  very  high  importance  which  Our  Lord  ascribes  to  the 
eating  His  sacred  Flesh.  He  speaks  of  it  as  if  its  participation 
were  not  only  a  signal  blessing,  but  as  if  those  who  partook  of 
it  were  sure  of  their  salvation.  "  Whoso  eateth  My  Flesh,  and 
drinketh  My  Blood,  hath  eternal  life,  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at 
the  last  day."  And  yet  we  know  from  St.  Paul  that  those  who 
receive  the  same  unworthily,  "  eat  and  drink  their  own  damna- 
tion." To  avoid  this  difficulty,  Waterland  supposes  that  Our 
Lord  was  speaking,  not  of  the  gift  of  the  res  sacramenti,  but  only 
of  the  virtus  sacramenti.  This  he  expresses  by  saying  that  the 
passage  refers  to  spiritual,  and  not  to  sacramental  eating.  He 
considers,  that  is,  that  Our  Lord  is  speaking  of  the  benefits 
which  will  finally  be  obtained  by  good  men,  but  not  of  any  gift 
which  is  peculiar  to  the  Holy  Eucharist. 

This  introduction  of  the  receiver  j)erplexes  the  inquiry,  since 
it  ought  first  to  be  determined  what  is  the  gift  bestowed  by 
Almighty  God  in  this  sacrament.  Is  it  meant  that  the  virtus  I 
sacramenti  is  merely  that  general  assistance  of  divine  grace 
which  accompanies  all  ordinances  ?  This  is  Waterland's  theory, 
which,  though  clothed  in  pious  expressions,  is  identical  with 
that  of  Zuinglius.  But  it  fails  to  do  justice,  not  only  to  the 
interpretation  put  upon  this  passage  by  ancient  writers,  but  to 
the  mysterious  and  emphatic  words  of  the  passage  itself.  Why 
should  Our  Lord's  Body  be  spoken  of  as  the  principle  of  life  to 


156  REAL  PRESENCE  TAUGHT 

the  soul,  unless  something  more  were  intended,  than  that  it  liad 
once  l)cen  offered  on  the  ci'oss  for  the  sins  of  men  ?  Such  expres- 
sions cannot  be  rested  merely  upon  the  analogy  of  the  Jewish 
Law,  first,  because  that  Law  supplies  no  analogy  for  the  drink- 
ing of  Our  Lord's  Blood ;  and  secondly,  because  such  a  course 
would  be  to  make  the  Law  the  reality,  instead  of  the  Gospel. 
It  is  only  because  there  is  a  real  communication  of  Our  Lord  in 
the  Holy  Eucharist,  that  the  relation  which  takes  effect  between 
Him  and  the  devout  soul  can  be  expressed  by  phrases  so  singu- 
lar as  eating  His  Body  and  drinking  His  Blood.  The  reality 
of  the  res  sacramenti,  that  is,  gives  significance  to  the  otherwise 
unmeaning  phrases  employed  respecting  the  virtus  sacramenti. 
So  that  to  imagine  the  general  assistance  of  God's  Sjiirit  to  be 
all  which  is  intended,  fails  to  account  for  the  expressions  em- 
ployed by  Our  Lord  and  His  Apostles. 

Now,  if  to  avoid  this  difficulty  we  raise  the  virtus  sacramenti 
into  something  specific  and  peculiar,  and  suppose  it  to  be  that 
relation  to  Our  Lord's  Humanity,  which  results  from  His  office 
as  the  Second  Adam ;  if  we  ascend,  that  is,  from  a  dead  to  a 
living  Christ ;  from  the  mere  fact  that  mankind  were  benefited 
by  His  foi'mer  sufferings,  to  the  truth  that  they  are  pai'takers  of 
His  present  glory : — then  we  must  either  admit  the  existence  of 
a  res  sacramenti,  or  we  must  fall  back  upon  the  Calvinistic  hy- 
pothesis, previously  explained  (p.  102),  and  make  the  Divine 
decree  the  link  between  the  external  sign  and  the  inward  bene- 
fit. This  hypothesis  was  shown  to  have  been  introduced  in 
order  to  do  justice  to  the  language  of  Scripture,  without  ad- 
mitting that  principle  of  consecration  which  implied  that  a  gift 
was  always  bestowed,  but  that  it  was  improved  onlj'^  by  the 
devout  receiver.  So  that  unless  men  are  i)re2iared  to  accept 
the  unscriptural  dogma  of  reprobation,  they  must  of  necessity 
admit  the  presence  of  a  res  sacramenti,  and  the  reality  of  con- 
secration. 

Now  to  accept  these  two  jirinciples  is  the  same  thing  as  to 
affirm  that  Our  Loid  is  present  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  sacra- 
mcutally.     And  the  admission  of  a  sacramental  i^resence  will  be 


BY  ST.  JOHN  VI.  157 

found  to  explain  all  the  difficulties  of  the  Chapter  before  us,  and 
especially  that  which  is  grounded  upon  the  greatness  of  Our 
Lord's  promise.  It  supposes  that  two  things,  dissimilar  in 
kind,  are  mystically  joined  together  by  consecration.  The  out- 
ward part  consists  of  the  sensible  creatures  of  bread  and  wine  ; 
the  inward  part  is  that  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  which  by 
union  with  His  Godhead  has  been  made  the  principle  of  spiri- 
tual vitality.  But  though  all  who  receive  one  receive  the  other, 
yet  no  benefit  follows  from  this  reception,  except  there  be  living 
faith  in  the  receiver.  For  it  is  one  thing  to  receive  Christ's 
Body  and  Blood  sacramentally,  and  another  that  the  soul  should 
be  brought  into  relation  to  Christ.  The  first  depends  upon  the 
consecration  of  the  elements :  the  second  requires  in  addition 
the  spiritual  life  of  the  receiver.  Our  Lord  speaks  in  general 
terms  of  the  value  of  the  Holy  Eucharist,  just  as  in  the  third 
chapter  of  St.  John  He  uses  general  terms  respecting  the  bless- 
ings of  Baptism,  but  without  intending  that  its  benefits  are 
gained  unless  the  ordinance  is  improved  as  well  as  partaken. 
He  speaks  of  the  importance  of  the  gift,  without  entering  upon 
the  further  consideration  how  it  is  employed. 

So  much  is  meant  by  the  assertion  that  Our  Lord  is  sacra- 
mentally present :  the  idea  depends  upon  the  prominence  given 
to  that  act  of  consecration  on  which  the  validity  of  the  sacra- 
ment is  dependent.  If  it  be  believed  that  a  real  Presence  of 
Christ  takes  effect  by  virtue  of  that  mystical  blessing  which  it 
pleases  Him  to  pronounce  through  the  ministration  of  His  ser- 
vants, then  we  have  an  explanation  of  His  words,  which  renders 
it  unnecessary  either  to  lower  down  the  reality  of  the  Eucharis- 
tic  gift  with  Zuinglius,  or  to  Jjj^it  its  efficacy  with  Calvin.  So 
that  we  may  accept  the  statements  of  the  sixth  chaj)ter  of 
St.  John  in  their  simple  force,  and  yet  not  believe  that  every  one 
will  be  saved  to  whom  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  administered. 
AVhat  Our  Lord  declares  is,  that  the  res  sacramenti,  or  thing 
imparted  in  that  sacrament,  is  the  principle  of  life,  inasmuch  as 
it  is  His  Presence  in  whom  life  has  entered  into  the  world. 
The  whole  context  of  Scripture  implies,  that  in  speaking  thus 


158  REAL  PRESENCE  TAUGHT  BY  ST.  JOHN  VI. 

Our  Lord  was  addressing  responsible  beings,  whose  state  de- 
pends upon  tlie  use  of  their  advantages.  But  the  importance 
which  He  attaclies  to  the  rite  is  exphiined  by  the  effect  which 
attaches  to  its  consecration.  By  virtue  of  that  act  the  sacra- 
mentum  and  the  res  sacramenti  go  together  ;  every  one  who 
receives  one  receives  the  other ;  the  true  principle  of  life  is  re- 
ceived sacramentalhj :  but  no  benefit  ensues  unless  the  soul  of 
the  receiver  is  brought  into  relation  with  Christ,  and  He  im- 
proves the  blessing  which  has  been  communicated.  Christ  be- 
stows Himself  ujjon  man  sacramentallt/,  by  virtue  of  the  efficacy 
of  consecration :  but  it  is  only  by  faith  and  love  that  man  can 
be  spiritually  united  to  Christ. 

It  is  the  reality  of  consecration,  then,  which  gives  meaning 
to  the  term  sacramental  Presence,  as  well  as  efficacy  to  the 
ordinance  in  which  it  is  dispensed.  And  this  circumstance 
enables  us  to  discriminate  between  the  teaching  of  St.  Augustin 
and  that  of  Calvin.  St.  Augustin  certainly  uses  exj^ressiona 
on  which  it  is  possible  to  put  a  Calvinistic  meaning.  He 
does  not  distinguish  between  the  res  sacramenti  and  the  virtus 
sacramenti ;  whereas  it  would  be  more  consistent  to  identify 
the  first  with  the  inward  pai't  or  thing  signified,  the  second 
with  its  effect  on  the  devout  soul.  In  one  or  two  places  he 
might  be  imagined  to  intend  that  the  inward  gift  in  the  Holy 
Eucharist  was  never  bestowed  except  upon  those  who  had 
the  gift  of  final  perseverance.^  But  these  equivocal  expressions 
are  neutralized  by  the  fact,  which  entirely  separates  him 
from  Calvin,  that  he  admitted  the  validity  of  the  Holy  Eu- 
charist to  depend  upon  its  consecration,  and  that  he  supposed 
the  Body  of  Christ  to  be  received  by  all,  whenever  the  out- 
ward and  inward  parts  had  been  joined  together  by  the 
mystical  benediction.     He  speaks,  therefore,  even  of  the  wicked, 

'  "Signum  quia  manducavit  et  bibit,  hoc  est,  si  manet,  et  manetur,  si 
habitat  et  inhabitatur,  si  hwret  ut  non  rirscratur." — In  Joan.  Trac.  27, 
i.  p.  .002.  On  account  of  such  expressions,  Calvin  chiinis  S.  Augustin  as 
his  supporter. — Ailv.  llci^hus.  Works,  viii.  738.  But  tlie  wonls  would 
admit  of  being  translated,  "if  he  cleaves,  in  ordtr  that  he  may  not  be 
deserted." 


OUR  LORD'S  PRESENCE  IN  THE  HOLY  EUCHARIST.     159 

as  receiving  the  Body  ^  of  Christ,  though  they  receive  it  with- 
out benefit.  He  declares  the  validity  of  the  sacrament  to 
depend  on  the  combination  of  the  elements,  which  Our  Lord 
has  enjoined,  and  of  His  own  mystical  benediction.  "  Accedit 
verbum  ad  elementum  et  fit  sacramentum."  So  that  in  con- 
formity with  the  perpetual  belief  of  the  Church,  he  admitted 
the  necessity  of  consecration  and  the  authority  of  orders ;  and 
he  joined  in  those  Liturgic  services,  in  which  the  testimony 
of  the  original  truth  was  transmitted  to  succeeding  generations. 


CHAPTEE   VIII. 


TESTIMONY    OF    ANTIQUITT,  THAT    OUB  LORD  S    PEESENCE   IN   THE 
HOLY   EUCHARIST   IS   NOT   MERELY    SYMBOLICAL    OR    VIRTUAL. 

The  Scriptural  grounds  for  maintaining  Our  Lord's  Real 
Presence  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  have  been  stated  in  the  last 
chapter.  There  are  three  main  portions  of  Holy  Scripture — 
namely,  Our  Lord's  prediction  in  the  sixth  chapter  of  St.  John 
— the  words  of  Institution  as  recorded  by  the  other  three 
Evangelists — and  St.  Paul's  exhortations  to  the  Corinthians — 
from  all  of  which  it  may  be  gathered  that  Our  Lord's  Presence 
in  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  real,  sacramental,  and  supernatural. 
Yet  the  argument  turns  so  completely  upon  the  meaning  of 
expressions  which  in  themselves  are  familiar  to  all,  that  it 
is  of  moment  to  find  some  authoritative  comment,  by  which 
we  may  ascertain  the  intention  of  the  sacred  writers,  I  go 
on,  then,  to  inquire  how  this  doctrine  was  understood  in  those 
earher   ages   while   the    heritage   of  doctrine   was   fresh,    and 

^  "  Adducti  sunt  ad  mensam  Christi,  et  accipiunt  de  corpore  et  sanguine 
ejus,  sed  adorant  tantum,  non  etiam  saturantur,  quia  non  imitantur." — 
Epist.  cxl.  sec.  66.  Vide  also  In  Joan,  xxvii.  11.  De  Baptinmo  contra 
Don.  V.  9.     Sermo  Izxi.  17 ;  and  cclxvi.  7. 


160  NOT  A  MERE 

before  divisions  could  he  supposed  to  have  impaired  the  Church's 
authority.  In  the  present  chapter  it  will  be  sho^\^l  that  the 
early  Church  did  not  suppose  Our  Lord's  Presence  to  be 
merely  Symbolical  or  Virtvul ;  in  the  next,  that  the  notion 
which  it  accepted  was  that  of  a  Beal  Pi'esence. 

Here,  however,  we  are  met  by  one  difl&culty,  to  which  the 
very  richness  of  the  field  gives  occasion.  The  Holy  Eucharist 
was  so  constantly  present  to  the  thoughts  of  the  early  Chris- 
tians, that  the  references  to  it  in  their  writings  are  almost 
innumerable.  In  an  abundance  of  cases  their  notices  respecting 
it  are  so  detailed  and  distinct,  as  to  supply  a  competent  basis 
for  doctrinal  arguments.  But  there  occur  also  many  general 
and  passing  allusions,  from  which  no  certain  conclusion  can 
be  deduced.  This  could  hardly  fail  to  be  the  case,  considering 
that  the  subject  was  continually  referred  to,  while  those  dis- 
putes respecting  its  nature,  by  which  the  Church  has  since 
been  agitated,  were  as  yet  unknown.  But  it  has  led  to  many 
misrepresentations ;  since  vague  and  general  statements  may 
readily  be  bent  according  to  the  caprice  of  the  interj^reter. 

It  will  be  useless,  therefore,  to  refer  to  the  language  of  the 
Fathers,  unless  we  first  fix  upon  some  tests,  by  which  the 
various  theories  which  have  been  adduced  may  be  discrimi- 
nated. Let  us  take  the  systems,  then,  between  which  the 
dispute  really  lies,  and  see  what  are  those  characteristic 
features  in  each,  respecting  which  we  can  appeal  to  the  judg- 
ment of  antiquity. 

I.  Now,  when  Our  Lord  is  said  to  be  present  symhoUcally 
only,  or  fiij^iratively,  in  the  Holy  Eucliarist,  it  is  meant  that 
He  is  present  merely  as  an  object  to  the  minds  of  men,  just 
as  Abraham  is  present  to  our  thoughts  when  we  hear  of  the 
father  of  the  faithful,  or  Adam,  when  we  hear  of  the  father 
of  mankind.  And  therefore  His  presence  would  not  depend 
upon  Himself,  and  His  own  acts,  but  ujwn  the  conceptions 
of  men.  So  that  according  to  this  system.  Our  Lord  is  absent, 
rather  than  present ;  His  Flesh  and  Blood  may  be  thought 
of,  but  they   are    thought   of  as   present  in    heaven,  and  not 


SYMBOLICAL   PRESENCE.  161 

Aipon  earth — not  as  being  really  present  in  the  elements,  but 
jreally  absent  from  them.  The  only  difference  between  the 
iHoly  Eucharist  and  any  other  circumstance  which  puts  us 
tin  mind  of  Christ,  is  that  Almighty  God  has  authorized  its 
/employment  as  a  memorial ;  so  that  we  have  a  divine  sanction 
J  for  considering  the  bread  to  represent  the  Body,  and  the  wine 
'the  Blood  of  Christ. 

Such  are  the  characteristic  circumstances,  which  grow  out 
of  that  which  was  observed  to  be  the  fundamental  principle 
of  Zuinglius,  namely,  that  the  benefit  conveyed  in  the  Holy 
Eucharist  does  not  depend  upon  the  efficacy  of  consecration, 
or  upon  any  gift  bestowed  by  Almighty  God  through  the 
consecrated  elements,  but  solely  upon  the  disposition  of  the 
receiver.  If  we  would  determine,  therefore,  whether  the 
ancient  writers  agreed  with  him,  we  must  see  whether  they 
believed  in  a  real  presence,  or  a  real  absence.  Did  they  be- 
lieve that  Christ's  jiresence  depended  upon  Himself,  and  His 
own  acts,  or  upon  the  imagination  of  the  receiver  ?  And  this 
will  be  found  to  be  so  clear  a  point  as  scarcely  to  require  a 
protracted  inquiry.  For  the  question  is  settled  at  once,  by 
those  passages  in  which  the  Fathers  not  only  assert  Our 
Lord's  presence  to  be  real,  but  answer  the  objections  which 
are  made  against  such  a  presence  on  the  ground  of  its  im- 
possibility. Their  statements  show  that  they  did  not  suppose 
Our  Lord's  Body  to  be  merely  present  to  men's  imagination, 
or  that  His  words  were  designed  to  have  only  a  figurative 
and  parabolical  meaning.  For  what  difficulty  or  mystery 
would  there  have  been  in  supposing  that  Our  Lord  was  an 
object  to  the  thoughts  of  men ;  or  how  could  the  employment 
of  any  particular  sign  or  emblem,  as  a  representation  of  His 
Body  and  Blood,  be  alleged  to  be  impossible  ?  Nothing  is 
more  usual  than  the  employment  of  emblems,  and  why  should 
not  an  emblem  be  employed  in  a  case  in  which  Almighty  God 
has  expressly  sanctioned  its  use  ?  Nothing  would  have  been 
easier,  therefore,  for  the  Fathers,  than  to  have  met  all  ob- 
jections   against    the    possibility    of   the    Holy   Eucharist,  by 


162  NOT  A  MERE 

observing  that  Oui*  Lord's  Body  was  not  really  present,  but 
really  absent ;  and  that  the  presence  spoken  of  was  only  that 
presence  in  figure  and  to  the  thoughts,  which  was  equally 
possible  in  all  other  cases.  But  how  wholly  different  is  the 
language  used  by  St.  Cyril  of  JeiTisalem !  "Contemplate, 
therefore,  the  bread  and  wine,  not  as  bare  elements,  for  they 
are,  according  to  the  Lord's  declaration,  the  Body  and  Blood 
of  Christ ;  for  though  sense  suggests  the  fonner  to  thee " 
(t.  e.  that  they  are  bare  elements),  "  let  faith  stablish  thee. 
Judge  not  the  matter  from  taste,  but  from  faith  be  fully 
assured  without  misgiving,  that  thou  hast  been  vouchsafed 
the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ."  ^  Now  it  is  plain  from  this 
passage,  that  St.  Cyril  supposed  the  thing  contemplated  to 
be  mysterious  and  difficult ;  so  that  his  words  are  incompatible 
with  the  idea  that  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  merely  a  figure  of 
that  which  is  I'eally  absent,  for  this  would  neither  be  difficult 
nor  mysterious. 

The  same  may  be  said  respecting  the  following  passage  of 
St.  Ambrosej 

"  Perhaps  you  may  tell  me,  that  which  I  see  is  something 
different :  how  can  you  assert  to  me  that  I  receive  the  Body 
of  Christ?  This  is  the  j^oint  which  it  I'emains  for  me  to 
pi'ove.  What  examples  therefore  do  I  use '?  Let  me  prove 
that  this  is  not  that  wliicli  nature  has  formed,  but  that  which 
the  blessing  has  consecrated  :  and  that  the  force  of  the  blessing 
is  greater  than  that  of  nature,  because  nature  herself  is  changed 
by  the  blessing."  Then  after  quoting  instances  of  the  exercise 
of  miraculous  power,  from  the  histories  of  ]Moses  and  Elisha, 
he  concludes  :  "but  if  human  blessing  was  of  such  avail  as 
to  change  nature,  what  are  we  to  say  of  the  Divine  consecra- 
tion itself,  where  the  very  words  of  Our  Lord  and  Saviour 
are  operative  V  For  that  sacrament  which  you  receive  is  pro- 
duced by  the  word  of  Chi-ist.  But  if  the  word  of  Elias  was 
of  such  avail  as  to  bring  down  fire  from  heaven,  shall  not 
Christ's  word  avail  to  change  the  form  of  the  elements?  For 
'He    spake    and    they  were    made,  He  commanded   and  they 

'  Myst.  Cat.  iv.  G,  p.  321. 


SYMBOLICAL   PRESENCE.  163 

were  created.'  Therefore,  if  the  word  of  Christ  could  bring 
out  of  nothing  things  which  did  not  exist,  cannot  He  change 
things  which  exist  into  that  which  they  were  not  before  V  For 
it  is  not  a  less  achievement  to  give  a  new  nature  to  things 
than  to  change  their  nature."  ^ 

Here,  again,  is  a  passage  which  plainly  affirms  Our  Lord's 
Presence  to  be  a  mystery  and  a  wonder ;  and  which  is  in- 
compatible with  the  Zuinglian  notion  of  His  real  absence, 
because  this  would  be  no  mystery  and  no  wonder.  The  same 
remark  would  apply  in  innu.merable  instances. 

"  In  every  thing  believe  God,"  says  St.  Chrysostom.  and 
"  gainsay  Him  in  nothing,  though  what  is  said  seem  to  be 
contrary  to  our  thoughts  and  senses,  but  let  His  Word  be 
of  higher  authority  than  both  reasonings  and  sight.  Thus 
let  us  do  in  the  mysteries  also,  not  looking  at  the  things  set 
before  us,  but  keeping  in  mind  His  sayings.  For  His  Word 
cannot  deceive,  but  our  senses  are  easily  beguiled.  That  hath 
never  failed,  but  this  in  most  things  goeth  wrong.  Since, 
then,  the  Word  saith.  This  is  My  Body,  let  us  both  be  per- 
suaded and  believe,  and  look  at  it  with  the  eyes  of  the  mind."  ^ 

Great  part  of  one  of  the  Homilies  attributed  to  Eusebius 
Emissenus  is  taken  uj)  in  the  application  of  this  principle 
to  the  Holy  Eucharist.  "  Let  the  uncertainty  therefore,  of 
Infidelity  give  way,  since  He  who  is  the  author  of  the  gift 
is  the  witness  to  its  truth."  ^  All  these  passages  show  that 
the  ancient  writers  did  not  suppose  Our  Lord's  Body  to  be 
really  absent,  or  that  bread  and  wine  were  mere  figures  or 
emblems  of  His  Presence. 

And  yet  it  cannot  be  expected  that  in  a  series  of  writers, 
so  voluminous  as  the  ancient  Fathers,  there  should  not  occur 
expressions  which  either  im2>ly,  or  may  be  construed  to  imply, 
a    different   result.     Those    on  which   the   greatest  stress   has 

^  S.  Ambrose  de  Mysteriis,  ix.  50,  52. 

-  S.  Chrys.  Horn.  82.  4,  on  St.  Matt.  cap.  xxvi.  34.  Vide  also  S.  Clirys. 
in  1  Cor.  Horn.  24.  4,  vol.  x.  p.  216.. 

^  Homilia  v.  de  Pascha.  Bib.  Pat.  Max.  vi.  636. 

M  2 


164  NOT  A  MEKE 

been  laid  by  the  advocates  of  a  mere  symbolical  presence,  are 
several  passages  in  which  the  bread  and  wine  in  the  Holy 
Eucharist  are  described  as  antitypes  of  the  Body  and  Blood 
of  Christ.  Such  expressions  occur  in  the  Liturgy  of  St.  Basil, 
in  St.  Gregory  Naziauzen'§  Orations,^  in  the  Catechetical 
Lectures  of  St.  Cyril"  of  Jerusalem,  and  in  the  Apostolical 
Constitutions.^  "  We  draw  near  to  Thy  sacred  altar,  and 
having  placed  upon  it  the  aijtitypes  of  the  sacred  Body  and 
Blood  of  Thy  Christ,  we  make  our  petitions."  ■•  From  these, 
and  a  few  similar  passages,  it  is  inferred  that  Our  Lord  is 
not  really  present  in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  but  that  His  Body 
and  Blood  are  merely  repi'esented  by  these  visible  sj'mbols. 

It  must  be  remembered,  however,  that  the  Holy  Eucharist 
has  been  shown  to  consist  of  two  parts,  an  outward  sign  and 
an  inward  reality — the  first  alone  accessible  to  the  senses,  the 
second  an  object  only  to  faith  and  to  the  mind.  Now,  since 
these  two  jiarts,  the  sacramentv/m  and  res  sacramenti,  are 
present  together,  and  since  the  first  is  the  sign  or  token, 
which  announces  to  us  the  presence  of  the  other,  what  can 
be  more  natural  than  that  it  should  sometimes  be  spoken  of 
as  the  counterpart  of  that  by  which  it  is  accompanied?  And 
this  is  the  meaning  which  the  expressions  before  us  are  in- 
tended to  bear.  The  word  antitype,  considered  etjTnologically,'^ 
means  a  reality,  of  which  something  has  been  appointed  to  be 
the  type.  But  when  bread  and  wine  are  spoken  of  as  antitypes 
of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  this  original  meaning  is  not 
presei"ved.  Nothing  is  meant,  but  that  the  one  set  of  tenns 
answers  to  or  corresi)onds  with  the  other.     So  that  the  word 

1  Oratio  xi.  p.  187.  ^  Mystag.  Cat.  v.  20. 

•''  Apost.  Constit.  v.  14. 

''  Liturgy  of  S.  Basil,  Gear's  Euchol.  p.  169. 

*  The  word  is  used  in  this  correct  sense  by  S.  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  as 
expressing  the  inward  re.ality  of  which  the  outward  part  was  typical. 
St.  Paul,  he  says,  uses  the  words,  "as  often  as  ye  shall  eat  this  bread." 
He  says  not  as  often  as  ye  shall  eat  this  Deity,  but  as  often  as  ye  shall 
eat  this  bread.  Observe  that  it  is  about  the  Body  of  Our  Lord  that  his 
statement  is.  As  often  as  ye  shall  eat  this  bread,  of  which  His  Body 
is  the  antitype. — Advers.  Nest.  iv.  5  and  6,  vol.  vi.  pp.  114  and  115. 


SYMBOLICAL   PRESENCE.  165 

antitype  proves  nothing  in  behalf  of  the  doctrine  of  a  Symboli- 
cal Presence,  unless  it  can  be  shown  that  it  is  applied  to  the 
ordinance  as  a  whole,  and  that  it  excludes  the  presence  of  the 
res  sacramenti,  or  thing  signified.  We  must  refer,  therefore, 
to  other  passages,  and  see  whether  the  writers  who  have  used 
this  expression,  mean  that  the  Holy  Eucharist,  regarded  as  a 
whole,  is  a  figure,  or  whether  they  mean  merely  that  the  bread 
and  wine  are  a  figure  of  an  inward  reality. 

Now  it  would  seem  from  the  strong  censure  of  Magnes, 
that  there  must  have  existed  persons  who  applied  such  ex- 
pressions to  the  Holy  Eucharist  with  a  heretical  intention ; 
"  for  it  is  not,"  he  says,  "  a  type  of  the  Body,  or  a  tyjje  of 
the  Blood,  as  some  hardened  persons  have  fabled,  but  in  truth 
the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ."  ^  But  the  persons  referred 
to  were  j^robably  Gnostic  heretics,  since  no  trace  is  found  of 
them  among  the  Church's  members.  For  there  is  not  one 
of  the  ancient  writers,  by  whom  bread  and  wine  are  spoken 
of  as  antitypes,  who  has  not  expressed  himself  with  the  utmost 
distinctness  respecting  the  reality  of  that  inward  gift,  of  which 
these  form  the  external  counterpart.  The  passage  i-eferred 
to  in  St.  Basil's  Liturgy  is  immediately  followed  by  a  prayer 
that  God  would  "  make  this  bread  the  precious  body  of  Our 
Saviour  Christ."  ^  In  the  Apostolical  Constitutions,  where  the 
word  antitype  also  occurs,  we  find  a  similar  prayer ;  and  the 
delivery  of  the  elements  is  accompanied  with  the  statement 
that  the  thing  given  is  the  "  Body  of  Chiist."  ^  If  St.  Gregory 
Nazianzen  speaks  of  those  things  which  could  be  taken  in  the 
hands  and  consumed,  as  antitypes  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of 
Christ,  yet  he  elsewhere  exhorts  men  to  "  eat  the  Body  and 
drink  the  Blood,  if  they  desire  life:"*  and  he  describes  it  as 
the  privilege  of  the  priesthood  "  to  handle  the  mighty  Body 
of  Christ,"  and  "to  approach  to  the  approaching  God."^ 
Finally,   St.  Cyril's"    statements    as   to   the    awe    with   which 

^  Gallandi,  vol.  iii.  p.  541.  ^  Gear's  Eucholog.  p.  169. 

3  Lib.  viii.  12,  13.  *  Oratio,  xlii.  p.  690. 

'''  Oratio,  xxi.  p.  376.  ^  Mystag.  Cat.  iv.  6,  9,  v.  21. 


166  NOT  A  MERE 

men  should  approacli  and  handle  that  sacred  food ;  and  his 
caution  not  to  consider  it  to  be  merely  that  which  it  appears 
to  be,  and  to  trust  to  faith  rather  than  to  sense,  show  that 
he  could  not  possibly  have  imagined  the  Holy  Eucharist  to 
be  a  mere  sign,  but  must  have  imagined  the  outward  part  to 
be  an  antityjie  or  symbol  of  an  inward  reality. 

Again,  no  one  speaks  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  as  an  antitype 
of  Christ's  Body  and  Blood,  in  terms  more  likely  to  raise  a 
doubt  whether  he  did  not  conceive  it  to  be  merely  a  figure, 
than  Germanus,  who  was  Patriarch  of  Constantinoi:)le  in  the 
beginning  of  the  eighth  centuiy.  But  then  he  clears  up  his 
meaning  by  stating  that  the  priest  is  to  entreat  God  "  that 
He  would  accomplish  the  mystery  of  His  Son,  and  that  the 
bread  itself,  and  the  wine,  may  be  made  or  transmuted  into 
the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ;"  and  again,  that  "Christ 
has  given  us  His  divine  Flesh,  and  His  sacred  Blood  to  eat 
and  to  drink  for  the  remission  of  sius."^  There  is  no  occasion, 
therefore,  for  the  erroneous  explanation  of  Damascene,'^  that 
the  elements  are  only  sj)oken  of  as  antitypes  befoi'e  their  con- 
secration ;  for  the  use  of  such  a  term  is  rendered  singularly 
appropriate  by  the  relation  between  the  outward  and  inward 
parts  in  this  sacrament.  So  the  thing  is  applied  by  St.  Ma- 
carius :  "  in  the  Church  there  is  offered  bread  and  wine,  the 
antitype  of  His  Flesh  and  Blood ;  and  those  who  partake 
of  the  apparent  bread,  spiritually  eat  the  Flesh  of  the  Lord."  ^ 

This  twofold  character  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  accounts  for 
the  occurrence  of  several  other  passages  in  the  ancient  writers, 
which  have  been  alleged  to  imply  it  to  be  merely  symbolical. 
Such  are  some  expressions  in  Tertullian's  treatise  against 
Marcion,''   which    speak    of  bread    as   a   figure    of  Our  Lord's 

'  Tvenim  Eccles.  Cimtemplatio  Gallaiuli,  vol.  xiii.  pp.  'lH,  218,  223. 

■^  I)e  Fide  Orthotl.  iv.  13,  p.  273. 

^  Homilia  xxvii.  17.     Gallandi,  vol.  vii.  p.  108. 

^  Till.  nilr.  Marcii»i,  iii.  19,  iv.  40.  The  same  explanation  might  be 
given  of  the  phrase,  "panem,  quo  ipsum  corpus  suum  reprtvseutat." — Id. 
i.  14;  did  not  tliat  passage  mean  rather  "the  bread  V)v  wliich  He  makes 
His  own  Body  present."     For  the  words  rt^*rtT4e«/o/e  and  reprxsentatio 


SYMBOLICAL   PEESENCE.  167 

body.     Tertulllan  did  not  imagine  the  Holy  Eucliarist  to  be 
a  figure  only,  as  we  know  from  liis  own  statements  in  other 
places.     "  Our  flesh,"  he  says,  "  is  fed  by  the  Body  and  Blood 
of  Christ,  that   our   souls   may  be    satisfied   by  God."^    And 
again,  of  the  returning  Prodigal :  "  he  is  fed  with  the  richness 
of   Our   Lord's   Body,   that   is,  with   the    Eucharist."  ^    These 
passages    show  that  Tertullian    believed   there   was   a   reality, 
as   well   as   a   figure,    in   the    Holy    Eucharist.      But   it   was 
natural,   that  when   writing    against   Marcion,  he   should   not 
only  refer  to  the  outward   sign,  but  should    dwell  upon  that 
side  of  the  ordinance  almost  exclusively.     For  Marcion's  special 
heresy  was   that  he   denied  the    reality  of  Our  Lord's  Body. 
This  was  the  natural  result  of  his  Gnostic  notion — that  matter 
was  produced  by  an  evil  principle.     It  would  have  been  idle 
therefore  to  refer  to   the  Church's  belief  that  Our  Lord  was 
really  present  in  the   Holy  Eucharist,  when   Marcion  rejected 
its  assertion   that  His  Body  had  been  truly  present   even  in 
the  garden,  or  on   the  cross.     The    only   use    therefore   which 
Tertullian  could  make  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  against  such  an 
ojiponent,  was  to  refer  to  its  outward  part,  and  to  ask,  first, 
whether  this    did  not   imply  a   corresponding   inward  reality ; 
and  secondly,  whether  it  did  not   disprove  the   assertion,  that 
all  material  things  were  necessarily  unholy.     And  such  is  his 
mode  of  arguing  in  this  treatise :    he  appeals  to  the  notorious 
fact,  that  earthly  elements  had  been  selected  as  the  emblems 
of  Our  Lord's  presence — first,  as  a  proof  that  matter  is  not 
necessarily  impure ;    and  secondly,  as  implying  that  the  hidden 
reality,  which  it  has  been  chosen  to  represent,  is  likely  to  have 
an  actual  existence. 

in  Tertullian,  are  used  for  tlie  mnJdng  present  in  general,  wliether  the 
thing  spoken  of  is  to  he  made  present  to  the  spectator's  body  or  mind — ob- 
jectively, or  subjectively.  The  context,  that  is,  decides  whether  the  thing 
is  to  be  presenfeil  or  represented .  And  in  this  case  TertuUian's  other 
statements  show  that  he  considered  Our  Lord's  Body  to  be  presented  under 
the  form  of  bread. 

^  De  Resurrect.  8. 

^  "  Opimitate  Dominici  corporis  vescitur,  eucharistia  scilicet." — Be 
Fiidieitia,  9. 


168  NOT  A  MEEE 

The  .same  consideration  of  the  double  nature  of  the  Holy 
Eucharist,  supplies  the  explanation  of  a  passage  which  has  often 
been  quoted  from  a  Father  of  the  sixth  century,  St.  Facundus/ 
It  was  the  object  of  St.  Facundus  to  excuse  some  questionable 
statements  of  earlier  writers — among  others,  that  Our  Lord 
might  be  said  to  have  been  adopted.  He  considers  the  assertion 
^to  have  arisen  out  of  Our  Lord's  Baptism ;  because  "  the 
^  sacrament  of  adoption  may  be  called  adoption."  For  this  he 
accounts,  by  saying  that  so  intimate  a  relation  takes  place  in  a 
sacrament  between  the  outward  sign  and  the  inward  reality, 
that  the  one  may  borrow  the  title  and  description  of  the  other. 
And  he  illustrates  his  meaning  (in  a  somewhat  vague  manner) 
by  reference  to  the  Holy  Eucharist,  in  which  he  says,  "  we  call 
the  sacrament  of  His  Body  and  Blood,  which  is  in  bread  and  a 
consecrated  cup,  His  Body  and  Blood,  not  because  bread  is 
properly  His  Body,  and  a  cup  His  Blood,  but  because  they 
contain  within  themselves  the  mystery  of  His  Body  and  Blood. 
Hence  also  Our  Lord  Himself  called  the  bread  and  cup  which 
He  had  blessed,  and  which  He  gave  to  the  disciples,  His  Body 
and  Blood."  Now  this  is  perfectly  consistent  with  a  belief  that 
though  the  elements,  or  sacramentum,  regarded  as  objects  of 
sense,  retain  their  relation  to  the  external  world,  j-et  that  they 
contain  within  them  that  hidden  reality,  which  at  times  may 
borrow  their  names,  but  is  different  from  themselves  in  nature, 
St.  Facundus,  however,  M'as  not  explaining  the  nature  of  the 
Holy  Eucharist,  but  only  referring  to  it  by  way  of  illustration. 
So  that  his  object  was  attained,  provided  his  illustration  held 
good ;  and  it  holds  good,  whether  Our  Lord's  Presence  is 
believed  to  be  real,  or  to  be  merely  symbolical.  For  it  only 
implies  that  two  things,  so  intimately  related  as  a  sign,  and  a 
thing  signified,  may  borrow  one  another's  names  without  being 
in  all  respects  identical. 

This  illustration,  then,  regarded  in  itself,  might  leave  it 
doubtful  whether  St.  Facundus  believed  the  Holy  Eucharist  to 

^  Pro  defensione  Trium  Capit.  ix.  5.  Bib.  Pat.  Max.  x.  79. 


SYMBOLICAL  PRESENCE.  169 

be  merely  a  sign,  or  whether  he  believed  it  to  consist  both  of  a 
sign  and  of  a  Reality.  Yet  his  statement  that  the  bread  and 
wine  "contain  the  mystery  of  Our  Lord's  Body  and  Blood," 
leads  to  the  latter  conclusion.  For  it  shows  that  he  recognized 
the  existence,  not  of  a  sacranientum  only,  but  of  a  res  sacramenti 
also.  And  it  is  obvious  from  history  that  such  was  his  belief. 
For  there  is  no  trace  that  he  rejected  the  general  creed  of  his 
contemporaries.  So  that  he  must  have  agreed  with  St.  Csesarius 
of  Aries,  who  held  that  "  the  Invisible  High  Priest  changes 
visible  creatures  into  the  substance  of  His  Body  and  Blood,  by 
the  secret  power  of  His  word  :"^  and  with  Cassiodorus,  who  says 
that  the  sacrifice  of  Melchisedec  had  its  consummation  when 
Our  Lord  "  consecrated  His  own  Body  and  Blood  in  the 
distribution  of  bread  and  wine  as  the  means  of  salvation  :"  ^  and 
with  Leontius,  who  argues  against  the  Nestorians  for  the  unity 
of  Our  Lord's  Person,  by  asking  them,  "  whose  Body  and  Blood 
they  received  in  the  Holy  Eucharist:"^  and  with  Anastasius 
Sinaita,  who  accepts  the  statement ;  "  Grod  forbid  that  we  should 
say  that  the  sacred  communion  is  only  a  figure  of  the  Body  of 
Christ,  or  mere  bread ;  but  we  admit  it  to  be  the  very  Body  and 
Blood  of  Christ,  the  Incarnate  Son  of  God."*  There  is  no 
evidence  that  St.  Facundus  disagreed  with  these  contemporary 
writers,  and  there  is  direct  evidence  that  he  agreed  with_St.  Cyril 
of  Alexandria,  whose  assertions  of  Our  Lord's  Peal  Presence 
have  been  shown  to  be  numerous  and  distinct.  For  he  purposely 
takes  all  the  exceptions  which  he  can  against  St.  Cyril,^  with  a 
view  of  showing  that  Father  not  to  have  been  more  infallible 
than  other  writers ;  but  against  St.  Cyril's  statements  of  the 
Peal  Presence  he  takes  no  exception. 

It  is  clear,  then,  that  St.  Facundus  did  not  suppose  the  Holy 
Eucharist  to  consist  merely  of  an  outward  sign,  but  that  he 
supposed  it  to  consist  both  of  a  sign,  and  also  of  a  reality.     His 

^  Horn.  vii.  de  Pascha.  Bib.  Pat.  viii.  825. 

2  In  Psalm  110,  vide  Albertinus  de  Euch.  p.  892. 

3  Bib.  Pat.  ix.  704. 

■•  Vise  Dux,  cap.  xxiii.     Bib.  Pat.  ix.  855. 

^  Pro  defens.  Trium  Capit.  xi.  7.    Bib.  Pat.  x.  96. 


170  NOT  A  MERE 

lanpfuage  is  only  like  that  of  St.  Augustin,  who  accounts  for  the 
foot  that  the  names  given  to  the  outward  and  inward  parts  in  a 
sacrament  are  interchangeable,  by  saying  that  it  is  because  the 
two  are  in  some  sense  identical,  (We  have  already  seen  that 
they  are  not  jihysically,  but  only  sacramentally  identical.)  This 
is  St.  Augustin's  statement,  then,  in  his  celebrated  letter  to 
Boniface :  "  as  the  sacrament  of  the  Body  of  Christ  is  in  a 
certain  sense  Christ's  Body,  and  the  sacrament  of  the  Blood  of 
Christ,  is  Christ's  Blood;  so  the  sacrament  of  faith  is  faith."' 
And  hence  he  accounts  for  the  fact  that  children  are  said  by 
their  sponsors  to  believe.  For  faith,  he  says,  is  a  condition  in 
the  perfect  idea  of  Baptism,  and  since  the  outward  part  of  a 
sacrament  carries  the  inward  part  along  with  it,  the  presence  of 
this  inward  part  may  be  assumed,  unless  something  interferes 
with  the  comjjleteness  of  the  action.  And  in  proof  of  the  just- 
ness of  his  inference,  he  appeals  to  the  fact  that  children  are 
called  "Jideles." 

Now  this  argument  may  be  thought  to  be  defective ;  for  the 
inward  part  in  Baptism  is  not  faith,  but  grace,  as  St.  Augustin^ 
himself  observes  in  various  other  places  ;  and  he  may  be  alleged 
to  employ  a  forced  analogy  when  he  says  of  faith,  as  is  commonly 
and  truly  said  of  grace,  that  it  is  sufficient  that  childi'en  "  can 
oppose  no  bar  to  it."  But  at  all  events  there  is  nothing  in  his 
words  which  tells  against  the  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence ; 
on  the  contrary,  he  implies  that  both  an  outward  and  an  inward 
part  are  to  be  found  in  the  Holy  Eucharist.  And  when  he 
affinns  that  "  sacraments  would  not  l)e  sacraments  if  they  had 
not  some  likeness  to  the  things  of  which  thej''  were  sacraments" 
— this  is  merely  an  assertion  that  Almighty  God  would  not 
have  selected  the  outward  signs  which  He  has  been  pleased  to 
associate  with  inward  gifts,  unless  there  had  been  a  congruity 
between  the  sign,  and  the  thing  signified.  So  that  these 
statements  imply  nothing  at  variance  with  his  usual  senti- 
ments :    the   outward    and   inward    parts    are    respectively,   as 

'  Epist.  xcviii.  9. 

2  Epist.  clxxxviii.  26.  xcviii.  2.     De  Pecc.  Mer.  i.  10. 


SYMBOLICAL   PEESENCE.  171 

he  elsewhere  explains,  the  sacramentum  and  res  sacramenti ; 
both  are  necessary  to  the  completeness  of  this  sacrament ;  since  it 
is  through  the  combination  of  both  that  "  we  receive,"  as  he  tells 
us,  "  with  faithful  heart  and  mouth,  the  ]\Iediator  between  Grod 
and  man,  the  man  Christ  Jesus ;  who  gives  us  His  Flesh  to  eat, 
and  His  Blood  to  drink — though  to  eat  human  flesh  seems 
more  horrible  than  to  kill,  to  drink  human  blood  than  to  shed 
it."^  And  the  presence  of  this  gift  depends,  according  to  his 
teaching,  on  that  peculiar  act  of  consecration,  whereby  the 
outward  and  inward  parts  of  this  sacrament  are  mystically 
associated ;  so  that  the  dedicated  bread  which  was  given  to  the 
Catechumens,  though  "  it  be  sacred — more  sacred  than  our  other 
food;"  yet  "it  is  not,"  he  says,  "the  Body  of  Christ."^ 

The  passages,  then,  which  have  been  alleged,  are  insufficient 
to  prove  that  Our  Lord's  Presence  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  was 
considered  by  any  of  the  Fathers  to  be  merely  symbolical.  If 
any  perplexity  exists,  it  arises  mainly  from  the  fact  that  the  an- 
cient writers  have  been  dealt  with  as  though  they  were  exj^lain- 
ing  the  nature  of  the  Holy  Eucharist,  when  they  were  merely 
citing  it  in  illustration  of  things,  to  which  it  had  only  a  partial 
resemblance.  Such  passages,  however,  will,  seldom  present  much 
difficulty,  if  we  bear  in  mind  the  twofold  character  of  this  sacra- 
ment— its  visible  sign,  and  its  imoard  reality.  So  that  it  may 
be  described  either  by  its  outward  or  its  inward  portion,  as 
St.  Paul  speaks  sometimes  of  bread  and  wine,  and  sometimes  of 
the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ ;  and  the  one  part  may  borrow 
the  attributes  of  the  other,  as  the  Fathers  speak  of  touching  or 
breaking  the  Body  of  Christ,  though  it  is  the  sacramentum,  or 
sensible  part  only,  which  can  be  touched  or  broken.  Such  a 
distinction  is  observable  when  St.  Chrysostom,  in  his  private 
letter  to  Pope  Innocent,  respecting  the  violence  perpetrated  in 
the  Church  at  Constantinople,  says  that  "  the  sacred  Blood  of 

■*  S.  August,  contra  Adversarium  Legis  et  Proph.  ii.  83. 

^  De  Peccat.  3Ieri(is,  ii.  42.  Beveridge  on  2nd  Canon  of  Council  of 
Antioch  says,  that  S.  Augustin  refers  to  a  custom  like  the  dvTiSwpov,  or 
gift  of  bread  which  had  been  blessed,  in  the  Greek  Church. 


172  NOT   MEEELY 

Christ  was  spilt :  "  '  wliile  Palladius,  in  tlie  life  of  St.  Chrysos- 
tom  wliich  he  intended  for  the  public,  speaks  of  the  intruders  as 
having  "  spilt  the  symbols."  ^  The  assertion,  therefore,  that  in 
this  sacrament  there  is  a  sign  or  antitype  of  Christ's  Body  and 
Blood,  is  so  far  from  opposing,  that  it  is  a  necessary  part  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Eeal  Presence.  For  to  assert  the  Real  Presence  is 
to  say  that  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  there  is  a  sign,  together  with  the 
thing  signified.  So  tbat  what  objectors  ought  to  show  is,  not  only 
that  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  a  sign,  but  that  it  is  a  sign  only. 
Unless  this  can  be  made  good,  there  is  nothing  to  bear  out  the 
theory  of  Zuinglius,tliat  Our  Lord's  Body  is  not  really  present,  but 
really  absent.  For  there  is  nothing  to  set  against  the  distinct 
assertions  which  abound  in  all  the  Fathers,  that  this  sacrament 
is  a  reality.  Their  usual,  or  rather  theit  nearly  invariable,  cus- 
tom of  sjieaking  of  the  thing  bestowed  as  Christ's  Body  and 
Blood,  shows  that  this  was  the  portion  of  it  which  occupied  their 
thoughts,  and  touched  their  affections.  So  that  there  is  no  pre- 
tence for  alleging  that  they  supposed  it  to  be  merely  the  sign 
or  symbol  of  an  absent  object,  since  their  direct  assertions,  as 
well  as  their  expressions  of  awe  and  love,  show  that  they  be- 
lieved themselves  to  be  communing  with  a  jpresent  reality. 

II.  It  was  the  impossibility,  apjmrently,  of  making  head 
against  this  feeling,  which  led  Calvin  to  substitute  the  theory 
of  a  Virtual  for  that  of  a  Symbolical  Presence.  He  found  that 
it  was  in  vain  to  oppose  the  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence,  unless 
he  could  represent  the  Holy  Eucharist  as  something  more  mys- 
terious than  a  mere  sign.  With  this  purpose  did  he  introduce 
the  theory  of  a  Virtual  Presence ;  which  he  represents  to  be 
something  entirely  distinct  ^  from  a  mere  Symbolical  Presence, 

'  S.  Chrys.  Opera,  vol.  iii.  p.  519.  ^  Id.  vol.  xiii.  p.  34. 

^  Calvin  says,  "  quum  .  .  .  legerem  apud  Lutherum  nihil  in  sacramentia 
ab  CEcolampadio  et  Zuinglio  reliquum  Heri  jirseter  nudas  et  inanes  figuras  ; 
ita  me  ab  ipsorum  liliris  alienatum  fuisse  fiiteor,  ut  diu  a  lectione  absti- 
nuerim." — tSecnuda  ])efeiii<i(t  (idc.  Wtftphttl.  Works,  viii.  661.  And  when 
charged  by  Heshus  with  holding  oidy  a  symbi>lieal  presence,  he  says, 
"quod  de  syuibolico  corpore  gamt,  impuri  scnrne  maledictum  est." — 
Warkii,  viii.  732.  And  he  states  it  to  be  an  "iniprobum  convicium,"  to 
say  that  his  notion  of  "eating  Christ's  Flesh"  is  only  the  same  thing  as 


A   VIRTUAL   PRESENCE.  173 

and  to  be  calculated  to  engender  not  less  awe  and  wonder  than 
the  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence. 

Since  it  was  the  first  principle,  then,  of  a  Symbolical  Presence 
that  it  depends  upon  the  thoughts  of  men,  not  the  action  of 
Christ,  so  the  converse  ought  to  be  the  first  principle  of  a  Vir- 
tual Pi'esence.  But  if  the  connexion  which  takes  place  in  this 
sacrament  dejjends  not  upon  the  receiver,  but  upon  Christ,  the  » 
question  arises,  on  which  of  Our  Lord's  natures  is  it  dependent  ? 
Does  His  Presence  mean  merely  the  Presence  of  that  Godhead  ■, 
which  is  everywhere,  or  the  presence  of  the  Man  Christ  Jesus  ?    1 

The  mention  of  Our  Lord's  Body  leads  of  necessity  to  the 
latter  supposition.  And  it  may  be  argued,  that  since  we  know 
nothing  of  the  hidden  nature  of  substances,  the  presence  of  a 
body  by  virtue  is  in  truth  identical  with  the  presence  of  its 
essence.  So  that  it  has  been  maintained,  as  was  stated  above 
(p.  24),  that  Calvin's  theory  was  that  Our  Lord's  Body  is  really 
present,  though  not  in  a  carnal  and  sensible  manner.  No  doubt 
this  is  one  sense  in  which  the  notion  of  a  Virtual  Presence  might 
be  taken.  But  such  an  idea  as  this  is  wholly  alien  from  Calvin's 
pi'inciples.  For  if  it  comes  to  the  same  thing  with  the  Real  i|^  »t 
Presence,  why  should  that  term  itself  be  i-ejected '?  If  the  mean-  r^,^^",; 
ing  of  a  Virtual  Presence  were  that  the  virtue  which  proceeds 
from  Our  Lord's  Body  is  identical  with  its  essence,  then  would 
this  theory  be  identical  with  the  doctrine  that  besides  that 
natural  Presence  which  He  has  in  heaven,  Our  Lord  has  like- 
wise a  supernatural  Presence,  which  is  bestowed  in  the  Holy 
Eucharist.  That  a  virtue  should  issue  from  the  Body  of  Our 
Lord,  by  which  the  souls  of  men  are  influenced,  is  plainly  a 
supernatural  process.  Those  who  admit  it,  have  no  right  to 
complain  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence  passes  belief, 
for  the  diffusion  of  such  a  virtue  from  Our  Lord's  Flesh  is  as 
little  consonant  ^  to  the  ordinary  laws  of  material  existence,  as 

"fide  amplecti  ejus  beneficia." — Works,  viii.  738.  Dr.  Nevin  {Mystical 
Presence)  shows  that  Calvin  maintained  principles,  which  the  Presby- 
terians have  entirely  abandoned. 

^  Calvin  himself  asserts  this  in  his  answer  to  Heshus. —  Works,  viii. 
728. 


174  NOT  MERELY 

f 

that  the  capacity  to  be  present  supernaturally  should  have  been 

hestowed  upon  tliat  manhood  which  lias  been  taken  into  God. 
And  to  suppose  that  this  virtue  is  bestowed  through  hallowed 
elements,  would  lead  as  directly  as  the  doctrine  of  the  Real 
Presence,  to  a  belief  in  consecration,  and  to  the  validity  of 
{  Orders. 

Now,  since  these  were  the  very  conclusions  which  Calvin  was 
desirous  to  avoid,  he  could  not  admit  principles,  from  which 
they  inevitably  followed.  Hence  it  was  his  main  position  that 
Our  Lord's  human  Body  ^  had  no  other  mode  of  presence  except 
that  which  was  natural.  This  position  would  have  been  aban- 
doned, if  he  had  allowed  that  Our  Lord's  Humanity  had  ac- 
quired any  qualities,  by  which  it  could  exercise  influence  beyond 
that  place  which  it  occupies  in  heaven.  The  influence,  there- 
fore, which  is  exercised  in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  must  depend, 
not  upon  Our  Lord's  Humanity,  but  upon  tliat  Divine  Nature 
with  which  it  is  conjoined.  Not  only  can  Our  Lord's  Body 
exert  no  peculiar  efficacy,  as  all  admit,  through  its  natural 
powers :  it  can  exercise  none  through  any  supernatural  powers 
with  which  it  is  invested.  So  that  the  connexion  which  is 
brought  about  between  God  and  man  in  this  sacrament  is  owing, 
not  to  the  presence  of  Our  Lord's  Humanity,  but  to  that  Pre- 
sence which  He  possesses  as  God,  and  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  who 
is  pleased  to  co-operate  in  this  service.  By  the  influence  which 
they  exercise  upon  the  receiver's  mind  they  raise  it  to  heaven, 
and  thus  put  it  into  relation  with  Christ,  the  common  Head  of 
the  Christian  Body. 

So  far,  therefore,  there  is  little  which  goes  beyond  the  system 
of  Zuinglius.  For  the  receiver  s  soul,-  actuated  by  the  influence 
of  God's  Sjjirit,  is  the  motive  principle  on  which  the  connexion 
between  God  and  man  is  dependent.  So  that  we  do  not  get  rid 
of  that  which  was  characteristic  of  Zuinglianism,  that  this  sacra- 

'  "Christus,  quatenus  homo  est,  non  alibi  quam  in  ctelo." — Consens. 
Tii/ur.  xxi.     Nieiiiei/er,  p.  l'J6. 

*  "  Ntm  aliter  C'liristo  conjungimur,  quam  si  mentes  nostrae  mundum 
transceudaut." — Culcin,  De  Vera  rurticipativne.    Works,  viii.  744. 


A  VIRTUAL  PRESENCE.  175 

meiit  is  only  an  occasion,  on  which  Christ  is  a  more  immediate 
object  to  the  thoughts  than  at  other  seasons.  For  Zuinglius 
admitted  the  efficacy  of  God's  grace,  which  none  but  8ocinians 
deny.  There  is  no  rising  higher,  without  assigning  some  place 
in  the  transaction  to  Our  Lord's  Manhood.  This  was  discerned 
by  Calvin,^  who  taught '"  that  since  Our  Lord's  Body  is  a  part 
of  Himself,  those  persons  who  are  united  to  Christ  by  the  power 
of  His  Godhead  and  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  may  be  said 
to  be  united  to  His  Flesh  ;  and,  moreover,  that  a  virtue  issues 
from  Our  Lord's  Flesh  which  influences  the  souls  of  those  who 
are  united  to  Him.  Thus  did  he  account  for  the  frequent  and 
emphatic  mention  of  Our  Lord's  Flesh  and  Blood  in  Scripture, 
and  by  the  Fathers. 

Now,  in  giving  this  explanation  of  the  doctrine  of  a  Virtual 
Presence,  Calvin  was  availing  himself  of  the  double  sense  in 
which  the  words  virtue,  and  virtual,  may  be  employed  {vide  Cap. 
V.  p.  99).  Those  things  which  act  by  an  inherent  power,  are 
said  to  produce  an  effect  by  their  own  virtue :  while  other  agents 
depend  upon  extraneous  support.  Thus  the  sun  shines  by  its 
own  virtue — a  mirror  by  reflected  light.  In  this  sense,  virtual 
is  opposed  to  borroived  power.  But  in  another  sense,  virtual  is 
opposed  to  actual ;  as  when  it  is  said  that  a  man  has  virtually 
asserted  something,  which  he  has  not  actually  affirmed.  Each 
of  these  significations  has  its  j)lace  in  Calvin's  system.  When  it 
is  said  that  a  virtue  proceeds  from  Our  Lord's  Flesh,  the  former 
sense  is  implied ;  the  Virtual  Presence  of  Our  Lord  is  meant  to 
depend  upon  some  power  which  is  inherent  in  His  Flesh.  On 
the  other  hand,  when  it  is  stated  that  men  may  be  said  to  be 

^  Calvin  takes  credit  to  himself  for  opposing  the  system  of  Osiander, 
which  attributed  the  whole  efficacy  exerted  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  to  Our 
Lord's  Godhead,  whereas  he  himself  says  it  arises  from  Our  Lord's  flesh. — 
Worhs,  viii.  738,  722. 

"  Calvin  gives  a  formal  statement  of  his  theory  in  the  "Expositio," 
which  he  added  to  the  Consensus  Tigurinus.  "Hac  modo  ratione  contenti 
simus,  ultra  quam  nemo  nisi  valde  litigiosus  insurget,  vivificam  nobis  esse 
Christi  carnem,  quia  ex  ea  spiritualeni  in  animas  nostras  vitam  Christus 
instillat ;  eam  quoque  a  nobis  manducari,  dum  in  corpus  unum  fide  cum 
Christo  coaleseimus,  ut  nuder /actus,  nobkcum  sua  omnia  co7nmunicet." — 
Niemeyer,  p.  215. 


176  NOT   MERELY 

united  to  Our  Lord's  Flesh,  because  they  are  united  to  Uim, 
\  there  is  a  reference  to  the  latter  sense.     For  it  could  not  have 

ibeen  Calvin's  intention  to  affirm,  as  Luther  did,  that  there  is  an 
actual  Presence  of  Our  Lord's  Bodij,  in  all  places  in  which  He 
.  >  Himself  is  present  by  spiritual  power.     So  that  His  Flesh  is 
present  only  in  a  virtvxxl  manner,  or  by  implication. 

These  two  notions  are  put  together  by  Calvin,  as  if  they  were 
part  of  the  same  idea ;  when  in  fact  they  are  not  only  uncon- 
nected, but  almost  incompatible.     For  if  Our  Lord's  Flesh  were 
present  by  inherent  power,  what  would  be  the  use  of  saying  that 
it  was  also  nominalli/  present  V  Either  notion  indeed  is  a  great 
addition  to  the  theory  of  Zuinglius.     To  say  that  Our  Lord's 
Flesh  is  present  by  inherent  po  ver,  has  been  shown  to  be  nearly 
identical  with  an  admission  of  the  Real  Presence.     Even  to  say 
that  a  peculiar  relation  is  brought  about  between  the  receiver 
,  and  the  Humanity  of  Our  Lord,  is  to  assign  a  specific  effect  to 
1  the  Holy  Eucharist.     It  is  to  make  this  ordinance  the  means  of 
union  with  the  Mystical  Body  of  Christ.     But  if  these  notions 
I  are  examined  more  closely,  it  becomes  obvious,  independently  of 
their  incoherence  with  one  another,  that  neither  of  them  has  any 
real  place  in  the  system  of  Calvin. 

For  first,  the  vii'tue  Avhich  is  said  to  proceed  from  Our  Lord's 
Flesh,  though  continually  referred  to  by  Calvin  as  the  cause,  yet 
according  to  his  system  is  only  the  effect,  of  Our  Lord's  presence. 
For  he  states  that  the  union  which  takes  place  between.  Our 
Lord's  Flesh  and  the  souls  of  men,  is  brought  about  by  the 
action  of  that  spiritual  power,  by  which  the  minds  of  men  are 
lifted  up  into  heaven.  When  this  power  has  done  away  with 
the  interval  which  separates  men  from  Christ  s  Body,  they 
profit,  says  Calvin,  by  a  virtue  which  issues  from  His  Flesh. 
The  power,  then,  which  does  away  with  distance,  and  so  pro- 
duces presence,  is  merely  the  general  efficacy  of  spiritual 
influence  upon  the  minds  of  men ' — a  thing  which  is  common 
'  "Net|ue  eniin  aliler  t'liristnm  in  Cd'na  statuo  prajsentem,  nisi  quia 
fidelium  mentes  .  .  .  fide  super  muuduui  evehuntur,  et  C'hristus  Spiritus 
8ui  virtute  oljstaculum,  quod  offerre  poterat  loci  distautia,  tolleus,  se  meui- 
bris  suis  conjungit." — Sicanda  Defcns.  adv.  Wmfiihal.  Works,  viii.  6t)8. 


A  VIETUAL  PEESENCE.  177 

•to  his  system  and  to  that  of  Zuinglius.  So  that  it  is  a  mere 
artifice  to  refer,  as  he  does,  to  the  virtue  of  Christ's  Flesh, 
as  though  it  were  an  account  of  the  manner  ^  of  His  pre- 
sence. That  which  does  away  with  distance,  must  be  the  thing 
which  produces  presence.  If  Calvin,  therefore,  had  really  attri- 
buted any  efl&cacy  in  this  work  to  Our  Lord's  Flesh,  he  must 
have  allowed  that  the  Divine  power  overcomes  the  obstacle  of  dis- 
tance, by  bestowing  some  supernatural  gift  of  presence  upon  Our 
Lord's  Body,  and  not  merely  by  aiding  the  aspirations  of  the 
souls  of  men.  For  it  is  a  contradiction  to  say  that  Our  Lord's 
Body  is  the  motive  principle  in  this  action,  and  yet  to  deny  that 
it  possesses  those  pi'operties  upon  which  the  action  is  dependent. 
This  is  the  same  incongruity,  which  has  already  been  noticed 
in  Calvin's  system — a  virtus  sacramenti,  without  the  res  sacra- 
menti,  upon  which  it  must  be  dependent  {vide  p.  102).  In  thatj 
case  it  was  shown  that  Calvin  affirmed  a  certain  effect  to  I 
follow  from  the  gift  of  Our  Lord's  Body,  while,  in  place  of  1 
that  gift  itself,  he  substituted  God's  decree  and  intention  ' 
in  favour  of  His  elect.  And  here  in  like  manner  he  brings 
forward  the  efficacy  which  he  supposes  to  attend  Christ's  Body 
when  it  is  present,  as  though  it  were  an  explanation  of  the 
manner  in  which  His  presence  is  brought  about. 

Again,  when  we  turn  to  the  second  sense  of  the  word  virtual, 
and  consider  the  relation  which  is  brought  about  by  spiritual 
power  between  the  receivers  of  the  Holy  Eucharist,  and  Christ 
as  the  Head  of  the  mystical  Body,  we  find  that  the  truth 
conveyed  does  not  really  form  part  of  the  system  of  Calvin. 

^  "  Quum  dico  Christum  ad  nos  sua  virtu te  descendere,  nego  me  substi- 
tuere  aliquid  diversum,  quod  donationem  corporis  aboleat,  quia  modiim 
donationis  simpliciter  explico." — Secunda  Defens.  adv.  Wedplud.  Works, 
viii.  668.  And  again:  "Quia  videtur  obstare  locorum  distantia,  ne  ad 
nos  usque  perveniat  carnis  Cbristi  virtus,  nodum  hunc  ita  expedio,  Chris- 
tum licet  locum  non  mutet,  sua  ad  nos  virtute  descendere." — Idem.  Vide 
also  his  answer  to  Heshus,  Works,  viii.  726.  And  he  resents  the  charge, 
that  he  is  merely  supposing  that  men  enter  into  such  a  relation  to  Christ, 
as  exists  equally  between  distant  objects — as,  for  instance,  when  a  man 
becomes  possessed  of  a  distant  field. — Idem,  p.  728.  WTiereas  he  denies 
that  he  "nihil  relinquere  in  Ccena  prseter  jus  rei  absentis." — Idem,  p.  729. 

N 


178  NOT   MERELY 

For  it  is  neutralized  by  other  principles  which  Calvin  intro- 
duced, and  which  form  in  reality  the  wliole  belief  of  his  dis- 
ciples. For  since  the  Creeds  and  Liturgy  of  the  Church  are 
the  dam  which  keeps  up  the  faith  of  its  members,  the  popular 
belief  can  never  rise  above  the  lowest  point  which  is  compatible 
with  the  authorized  formularies.  And  here  lies  the  peculiar 
evil  of  that  ambiguity,  which  Calvin  introduced  into  this  part 
of  theology.  For  his  theory  has  been  the  means  of  concealing 
that  insensible  deterioration,  which  it  has  sanctioned.  Now 
it  was  universally  admitted  by  Calvm  and  his  followers,  first, 
that  "  this  receiving  Chi'ist's  Body  is  not  confined  to  the 
Lord's  Supper,  but  takes  place  whenever  faith  in  Him  is 
exercised : "  secondly,  that  "  it  was  common  to  believers  before 
\  and  after  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  God  in  the  Flesh." ' 

These  principles,  which  are  recognized  in  all  Calvinistic 
confessions,  make  it  nugatory  to  affirm  that  the  Holy  Eucharist 
rises  above  the  level  of  other  means  of  grace,  and  therefore 
that  any  peculiar  relation  to  Our  Lord's  Humanity  is  con- 
ferred in  this  sacrament.  It  is  universally  admitted  that 
Almighty  God  may  make  up  by  special  favour  for  the  defi- 
ciency of  means ;  and  also,  that  those  blessings  which  He 
usually  gives  through  appointed  channels,  may  be  chosen  to 
be  the  measure  of  His  extraordinary  gifts.  The  Israelites 
were  not  only  fed  mii-aculously  by  manna,  but  this  heaveidy 
food  was  probably  equivalent  in  quantity  to  the  bread  which 

'  These  points  are  adduced  by  Dr.  Hodge  (in  an  article  on  the  Mystical 
Presence,  Princetun  liihlicul  lleperfori/,  for  April,  1848),  as  proofs  that  it 
is  inconsistent  with  the  system  of  Cahdn  to  suppose  "  that  our  union  with 
Christ  involves  a  participation  of  His  Human  Body,  nature,  or  life." 
Dr.  Hodge,  though  a  follower  of  Calvin,  admits  that  his  approximation 
to  the  doctrine  of  the  Eeal  Presence  was  dictated  very  much  by  political 
considerations.  It  is,  he  says,  "an  uncongenial  foreign  element,  derived 
partly  from  the  influence  of  previous  modes  of  thought,  partly  from  the 
dominant  influence  of  the  Lutherans,  and  the  desire  of  getting  as  near  to 
them  as  possible,  and  j)artly,  no  doubt,  from  a  too  literal  interjiretation 
of  certain  passages  of  Scripture." — Vide  Daclriiie  of  the  lieformed  Church 
on  the  Lonl'K  Supper,  by  Dr.  Nevin,  pp.  20,  24.  On  this  subject  vide 
Dr.  Pusey  on  Baptism. — Tracts  fur  the  Times,  vol.  ii.  p.  223,  notes  K 
and  L. 


A  VIRTUAL   PEESENCE.  179 

would  have  been  needed  for  their  ordinary  nourishment.  But 
to  affirm,  not  only  that  "man  doth  not  live  by  bread  only," 
but  that  he  eats  every  time  he  exercises  faith  ^  in  the  heavenly 
Nourisher,  would  be  to  deny  that  God  has  ajipointed  earthly 
substances  to  be  the  media  of  His  bounty.  Again,  it  is  clear 
that  the  coming  Mediator  was  an  object  of  hope  before  His 
appearance,  and  that  there  is  no  salvation  for  the  children 
of  the  fallen  Adam,  save  through  union  with  Him.  But 
this  is  a  different  thing  from  affirming  that  the  gifts  which 
were  bestowed  by  the  Sun  of  Righteousness  before  His  ap- 
pearing, were  the  same  ^  with  those  which  He  has  since  con- 
ferred— that  the  sunshine  of  His  Presence  is  not  brighter  than 
its  twilight  anticipation.  Such  a  statement  is  inconsistent  with 
the  assertion  that  though  John  Baptist  was  the  greatest  of 
those  who  have  been  born  of  women,  yet  that  he,  "  which  is 
least  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  greater  than  he."  And  it 
must  necessarily  involve  the  depreciation  of  those  peculiar 
blessings  which  result  from  the  "  taking  of  the  manhood  into 
God." 

Since  the  Holy  Eucharist,  then,  was  not  allowed  to  confer 
any  specific  gift,  it  was  impossible  that  Calvin  could  suppose 
it  to  be  really  the  means  of  union  with  Our  Lord's  Body. 
So  that  he  could  not  suppose  that  there  was  even  that  Virtual. 
Presence  .of  Our  Lord's  Plesh  which  results  from  union  with 
His  Person ;  and  much  less,  that  the  presence  of  His  Flesh 
itself  was  bestowed  by  Power  or  Virtue.  What  led  him, 
then,  to  introduce  terms,  which  were  incompatible  with  his 
system,  as  well  as  with  one  another?  "Water land  attributes 
it  to  "an  ambiguity  which  he  was  not  aware  of."^  But  Cal- 
vin himself  seems  to  have  suggested  the  principle  on  which 
he  acted,  in  the  remarks  which  he  appended  to  the  Consensus 

^  Vide  Catechismus  Genevensis,  5. — Niemeyer,  p.  165.  Consensus 
Tigurinus,  Art.  19. — Niemeyer,  p.  195.  Conf.  Helvet.  Post.  21. — Nie- 
meyer, p.  521.     Confess.  Scotica,  1. — Niemeyer,  p.  353. 

°  "  Paria  sunt  utriusque  populi  sacramenta,"  &c. — Confessio  Helv.  Post. 
19.    Niemeyer,  p.  513. 

^  Doctrine  of  the  Eucharist,  cap.  vii.  p.  183. 


180  NOT   MERELY 

Tigurinus,  a.d.  1549.  The  purpose  of  tliat  confession  was 
to  unite  all  the  old  adherents  of  the  Zuinglian  party,  yet  to 
diminish  the  hostility  with  which  they  were  regarded  by  the 
Lutherans.  In  his  remarks,  Calvin  claims  it  as  the  merit  of 
his  system,  that  there  was  "  nothing  which  had  been  either 
revealed  by  God,  or  taught  by  the  Church  about  the  sacra- 
ments, which  it  did  not  briefly  contain."^  This  would  seem 
to  imjily  that  his  design  was  to  construct  a  system  which  would 
be  wide  enough  for  those  who  took  the  highest  view  of  the 
Holy  Eucliarist,  while  its  ambiguity  afforded  a  shelter  to 
those  whose  view  was  lowest.  He  felt  that  the  theory  of  a 
mere  Symbolical  Presence  did  no  justice  to  the  expressions 
either  of  Scripture  or  of  the  Fathers.  Yet  he  was  resolved 
not  to  admit  the  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence,  which  would 
involve  the  validity  of  consecration  and  the  authority  of  Orders. 
The  only  remaining  course  was  to  introduce  an  equivocal 
phraseology,  which  might  account  for  the  expressions  of  an- 
tiquity, without  rendering  it  necessary  to  accept  its  practice. 
There  was  room,  therefore,  in  his  system,  for  those  who  re- 
ceived the  teaching  of  Our  Lord  and  St.  Paul  respecting  the 
efl&cacy  of  Christ's  Flesh :  but  there  was  room  also  for  those  who 
held,  like  Zuinglius,  that  Our  Lord's  Body  exercises  no  more 
efi&cacy  at  present,  than  that  of  any  other  dead  man.  His  object, 
then,  was  to  bring  about  a  compromise,  by  which  parties  which 
were  really  opposed,  might  be  apparently  united.  The  latitude 
of  his  system  was  not  calculated  to  embrace  truth,  but  to 
disguise  error. 

"Whether  or  not  this  was  the  design,  it  was  certainly  the 
result  of  his  measures.  And  it  harmonized  so  well  with  the 
circumstances  of  the  times,  that  it  gave  a  dix'ection  to  the 
minds  of  his  followers,  which  tended  little  either  to  the  attain- 
ment of  truth,  or  to  the  honest  expression  of  opinion.  The 
opponents  of  the  ancient  Church  were  at  that  time  divided 
into  two  camps,  because  the  Lutherans  sided  with  the  Catholics 
in  admitting  the  Real  Presence.  Now  the  acceptance  of  Cal- 
'  Niemeyer,  p.  206. 


A  VIRTUAL   PRESENCE.  181 

vin's  theory  of  a  Virtual  Presence  was  the  grand  means,  by 
wliich  the  politicians  on  either  side  attempted  to  heal  this 
dissension.  And  his  system  is  found  to  have  been  pliant 
enough  to  have  adopted  a  different  shape  and  meaning,  accord- 
ing as  it  was  convenient  to  his  followers  to  express,  or  to 
conceal  their  full  opinions.  When  the  French  Huguenots  were 
anxious  not  to  give  offence  to  their  political  governors,  and  also 
to  conciliate  the  sympathy  of  the  Germans,  they  went  so  far  as 
to  affirm  that  Our  Lord  "nourishes  and  quickens  us  with  the 
substance  of  His  Body  and  Blood.  "^  Yet  the  residue  of  their 
confession  shows  that  they  agreed  entirely  with  the  Swiss,  by 
whom  the  "transfusion  of  Our  Lord's  substance"^  is  expressly 
denied.  The  Second  Helvetic  Confession,^  in  which  the  sacra- 
mental theory  of  the  Swiss  is  stated  so  as  to  give  the  least 
umbrage  to  the  Lutherans,  was  put  into  circulation  by  the 
Elector  Palatine,  a.d.  1565,  when  he  was  afraid  that  the 
hostility,  which  this  subject  excited,  would  lead  to  his  exclusion 
from  the  peace  of  the  empire. 

Independently  of  the  general  dishonesty  which  must  have 
resulted  from  this  systematic  employment  of  equivocal  ex- 
pressions, it  has  led  to  great  unfairness  in  the  treatment  of 
ancient  writers.  Of  the  three  modes  of  Our  Lord's  Presence — 
Symbolical  merely,  Virtual  and  Real — the  first  and  last  are 
plainly  incompatible.  The  Calvinistic  writers,  therefore,  fre- 
quently adduce  passages  in  which  the  Fathers  speak  of  Our 
Lord's  Presence  as  symbolical,  as  being  an  argument  against 
the  Real  Presence.  It  has  been  already  shown  that  these 
passages  are  wholly  irrelevant,  because  they  do  not  speak  of 
Our  Lord's  Presence  as  merely  symbolical  (vide  p.  172).  But 
were  it  otherwise,  they  could  be  of  no  service  to  the  Calvinists ; 
since  they  would  militate  against  a  Virtual,  not  less,  or  even 
more,  than  against  a  Real  Presence.  Yet  this  is  the  mode  of 
argument  adopted  throughout  the  voluminous  work  of  Alber- 

^  Confess.  Gallica,  A.D.  1561.  Art.  36.     Niemeyer,  p.  325. 
2  Consensus  Tigur.  Art.  23.     Niemeyer,  p.  196. 
^  Niemeyer,  Prjefatio,  Ixiv. 


182  NOT   MERELY 

tinus.  He  is  conscious  tliat  nothing  lower  than  a  Virtual  Pre- 
sence can  harmonize  with  the  strong  expressions  of  the  Fathers. 
But  he  would  be  unable  to  make  head  against  the  doctrine  of 
the  Real  Presence,  without  the  aid  of  passages,  which,  taken 
as  he  employs  them,  would  lead  to  Zuiiiglianism.  As  though 
a  man's  own  theory  was,  that  a  certain  document  was  written 
in  Greek,  while  his  only  ground  for  maintaining  that  it  could 
not  be  written  in  Hebrew  was,  that  its  author  knew  no  language 
but  English. 

We  must  disregard  such  arguments,  then,  as  lead  to  a  mere 
Symbolical  Presence,  when  we  compare  the  doctrine  of  a  Vir- 
tual, with  that  of  a  Real  Presence.  For  between  these  two 
alone  lies  the  immediate  question.  But  in  what  sense  are  we 
to  take  the  Virtual  Presence,  which  is  the  object  of  compari- 
son ?  Does  it  mean  the  diffusion  of  such  a  virtue  from  Our 
Lord's  Body,  as  would  be  equivalent  to  the  gift  of  His  essence 
to  the  receiver  upon  earth?  Is  He  admitted  to  be  present 
under  the  forms  of  bread  and  wine ;  and  is  the  only  thing  ex- 
cluded His  natural  presence?  Such  a  supj)osition  would  be 
identical  with  the  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence ;  and  there 
would  remain  but  two  modes  of  Presence — Real  and  Symbolical. 
Now,  as  this  extreme  must  be  avoided,  so  must  that  which 
would  identify  the  Virtual  Presence  with  Zuinglianism.  For 
though  this  may  have  been  the  practical  result  of  Calvin's 
system,  yet  it  would  leave  us  nothing  to  compare,  since  it  would 
merge  the  Virtual  in  the  Symbolical  Presence. 

We  must  take  the  Virtual  Presence  therefore  in  the  only 
sha[;e  which  will  give  it  a  substantive  existence ;  and  enable 
us  to  contrast  it  with  the  other  two  ideas  into  which  it  really 
resolves  itself.  We  must  assume,  that  is,  that  Calvin's  system 
is  genuine  and  consistent.  The  receiver's  soul  is  supposed,  then, 
to  be  put  into  relation  with  Our  Lord  in  the  Holy  Eucharist, 
through  the  influence  of  His  Godhead,  and  the  power  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  And  since  any  one's  body  is  a  part  of  him,  and 
especially  since  a  virtue  proceeds  from  Our  Lord's  Flesh, 
which  affects  the  souls  of  those  who  have  been  united  to  Him, 


A  VIRTUAL  PEESENCE.  183 

therefore  the  receiver  may  be  said  to  be  virtvMly  united  to  Our 
Lord's  Body,  because  he  is  united  to  Our  Lord  Himself.  The 
doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence,  on  the  other  hand,  assumes  Our  , 
Lord  to  employ  His  Bod^as  the  medium  whereby  He  bestows 
Himself  in  thg_^Qlx  Eucharjgt.  In  Calvin's  system,  therefore, 
the  relation  between  Our  Lord  and  the  receiver  is  supposed  to 
depend  only  upon  the  spiritual  efficacy  of  a  divine  power ;  the 
opposing  doctrine  refers  it  to  the  supernatural  efficacy  of  Christ's 
Flesh.  The  Real  Presence  is  that  men  are  united  to  Christ, 
because  they  are  partakers  of  His  Flesh;  Calvin  holds  that 
they  may  be  said  to  be  partakers  of  Christ's  Body,  because  they 
are  united  to  Christ. 

There  will  be  found  to  be  three  several  criteria,  by  which 
the  adoption  of  one  or  the  other  of  these  systems  may  be 
ascertained.  First — Is  Our  Lord's  Body  spoken  of  as  a  medium 
through  which  we  are  put  into  relation  with  Himself?  Second- 
ly—Are the  consecrated  elements  supposed  to  be  entitled  to  any 
peculiar  reverence  ?  Thirdly — Are  all  by  whom  the  elements 
are  received,  supposed  to  receive  Christ's  Body  ? 

The  two  last  of  these  questions  will  be  noticed  in  the  next 
Chapter,  where  they  will  be  shown  to  have  been  answered  in 
the  affirmative  by  the  ancient  Church,  as  decidedly  as  they 
were  negatived  by  Calvin.  Here  it  will  be  enough  to  consider 
the  first  question,  which  will  afford  a  sufficient  criterion  that 
a  Virtual  Presence  does  not  come  up  to  the  language  of  the 
ancient  Fathers.  They  everywhere  affirm  that  Our  Lord's 
Body  has  been  consecrated  to  be  the  medium  through  which  a 
relation  is  to  be  brought  about  between  the  God-man  and  His 
brethren.  And  they  suppose  that  the  supernatural  Presence 
of  Christ's  Manhood  in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  is  the  very  thing 
which  is  bestowed  as  the  instrument  of  union  by  the  power  of 
the  Divine  "Word,  and  by  the  efficacy  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Thus 
St.  Cyril  says  to  Nestorius  : 

"  You  seem  to  me  to  forget  that  it  is  by  no  means  the  nature 
of  the  Godhead  which  is  set  forth  on  the  sacred  tables  of  the 


184  NOT   MERELY 

Church,  but  the  very  Body  of  the  Word,  who  sprunpf  from  God 
the  Father  ;  the  which  AVord  is  uaturally  and  truly  God.  Why 
therefore  do  you  confuse,  and  ignorant  ly  mix  up  everything, 
almost  ridiculing  that  bread  which  conieth  down  to  us  from 
heaven,  and  giveth  life  unto  the  world,  because  it  is  not  called 
Deity  by  the  voice  of  divines,  but  rather  the  Bod}'  of  Him  who 
was  incarnate  for  our  sakes."^  This  circumstance  he  adduces 
as  a  pi'oof  that  Our  Lord's  Flesh  is  really  united  to  the  God- 
head :  saying  that  "  otherwise  the  bloodless  sacrifice  would  be 
of  little  benefit ;  for  it  cannot  be  conceivable  that  the  nature  of 
the  Godhead  should  be  consumed  along  with  the  flesh ;  seeing 
that  we  have  not  attained  to  that  which  is  impossible,  namely, 
to  feed  on  that  which  is  simply  incorporeal."  '^ 

St.  Cyril  repeatedly  refers  to  Our  Lord's  Flesh,  as  an  instru- 
ment Mhich  co-operates  with  His  Sjjirit  in  bringing  about  an 
union  between  Himself  and  mankind.  He  opposes  Our  Lord's 
Bodily  Presence  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  to  the  presence  and 
influence  of  His  Spirit,  declaring  them  to  be  separate,  though 
concurring  instruments.  Some  decisive  passages  on  this  subject 
are  elsewhere  quoted  at  length.^  St.  Cyril  declares  that  Chris- 
tians are  not  only  spiritually  united  to  Christ  by  faith,  love,  and 
obedience,  but  likewise  "by  fleshly'  contact."  Otherwise,  he 
says,  "  let  any  one  explain  to  us  the  cause  and  teach  us  the 
efficacy  of  the  mystical  Eucharist.  Why  do  we  receive  it? 
Is  it  not  that  it  may  cause  Christ  to  dwell  in  us  even  bodily, 
by  the  participation  and  communion  of  His  sacred  Flesh?" 
And  then,  after  citing  some  passages  from  St.  Paul  and  St. 
John,  he  concludes :  "  it  is  especially  observable  that  Christ 
does  not  speak  of  dwelling  in  us  through  anything  which  de- 
pends only  upon  our  disposition  or  our  affections,  but  by  means 
of  a  physical  participation.  If  a  jx-rson  mixes  one  joiece  of  wax 
with  another,  and  melts  them  at  the  fire,  he  makes  one  thing  of 
both ;  and  so  by  the  participation  of  the  Body  of  Christ,  and 
of  His  precious  Blood,  He  is  made  one  with  us,  and  we  agaiu 

'  Adversus  Nestorium,  iv.  6,  vol.  vi.  p.  IIG.  -  S.  C'yril,  ib. 

^  Supra,  cap.  iv.  pp.  73,  78,  ami  cap.  vi.  p.  119. 

*  "  awatpda  Hard  aapKa." — In  Joan.  i.  "2,  vol.  iv.  p.  862. 


A  VIRTUAL  PEESENCE.  185 

are  made  one  with  Him.  For  there  was  no  other  way  in  which 
that  which  is  naturally  corrujitible  could  be  endued  with  life, 
save  by  bodily  union  with  the  Body  of  that  which  is  naturally 
life,  that  is,  of  the  Only-begotten  One." 

Similar  statements  are  to  be  found  in  all  parts  of  St.  Cyril's 
writings.    In  his  dialogue  on  the  Incarnation,  he  says, 

"  "We  may  see  that  He  bestowed  upon  His  own  Flesh  the 
glory  of  the  Divine  energy,  and  again,  that  by  the  union  of 
the  Incarnation  He  appropriated,  as  it  were,  to  Himself  the 
properties  of  the  Flesh,  and  arrayed  with  them  His  own  nature. 
B.  What  do  you  mean  by  this?  A.  Do  you  not  suppose  that  it 
belongs  especially  to  the  Word,  who  proceeds  by  nature  from 
God  the  Father,  to  come  from  above,  out  of  heaven ;  and  to  be 
able  to  quicken  those  into  whom  His  will  is  to  infuse  life  ? 
B.  I  allow  it.  A.  And  to  create,  like  God,  you  would  not 
allow  to  be  a  human  action  ?  B.  By  no  means.  A .  Well,  then, 
He  quickens  us  indeed  as  God,  but  not  only  by  our  partaking 
the  Holy  Spirit,  but  also  by  giving  us  to  eat  of  the  Flesh,  which 
He  has  assumed.  For  His  woixls  are,  'Verily,  verily,  I  say 
unto  you,  except  ye  eat  the  Flesh  of  the  Son  of  Man,  and  drink 
His  Blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you.'"' 

Passages  might  be  adduced  from  other  Fathers,  in  proof  that 
Our  Lord's  Human  Body  is  the  medium,  through  which  His 
relation  to  mankind  is  brought  about.  Such  is  St.  Augustin's 
statement  when  he  compares  Our  Lord's  gift  of  His  Body  in 
the  Holy  Eucharist  to  the  manner  in  which  the  food  ^\hich 
an  infant  is  unable  to  digest  is  prepared  for  it,  by  becoming 
"incarnate"  in  its  mother's  milk  (ipsurn  panem  mater  incarnat'^). 
Thus  St.  Chrysostom  says,  "  I  willed  to  become  your  brother. 

'  "  ov  novov  Tw  ixeraKaxeif  ayiov  irvevfiaTos,  dW'  eSfCTTfjV  napaOeh  Kal  t^j/ 
avaXr](p6uaav  ffdpKa." — Be  Incarmdione,  vol.  v.  part  i.  p.  707. 

^  In  Psalm  xxxiii.  Enar.  i.  6.  Vide  also  S.  Hilary,  "  Non  enim  qiiis 
in  eo  erit,  nisi  in  quo  ipse  fuerit,  ejus  tantum  in  se  assumtam  habens 
carnem,  qui  suam  sumserit." — De  Triii.  viii.  16,  p.  957.  And  again,  "De 
veritate  carnis  et  sanguinis  non  relictus  est  ambigendi  locus.  Nunc  enim 
et  ipsius  Domini  professione,  et  fide  nostra  vere  caro  est,  et  vere  sanguis 
est.  Et  haBC  accepta  atque  hausta  id  efficiunt,  ut  et  nos  in  Chi'isto,  et 
Christus  in  nobis  sit." — Id.  14.  Vide  also  S.  John  Damascene  de  Fide 
Orthod.  iv.  13,  vol.  i.  p.  267. 


186  NOT  MERELY 

For  your  sakes  I  shared  in  Flesh  and  Blood.  Again  I  give 
to  you  the  very  Flesh  and  the  Blood,  through  which  I  became 
your  kinsman."'  "In  the  economy  of  grace,"  says  St.  Gregory 
Nyssen,  "  He  infuses  Himself  through  His  Flesh'lxT'all  men 
■vvho  believe."^  "We  drink  the  immortal  Blood  of  Christ,"  says 
Julius  Firmicus;  "Christ's  Blood  is  joined  to  our  Blood.  This 
is  the  salutary  remedy  for  your  offences,  which  excludes  the 
mortal  plague  from  God's  people."^  And  again:  "seek  the 
bread  of  Christ,  the  cup  of  Christ,  that  the  frailness  of  earth 
may  be  despised,  and  man's  substance  enriched  with  immortal 
food.'"''  And  again  St.  Chrysostom's  successor,  St.  Germanus, 
A.D.  715 :  "  Our  Lord  has  not  only  sent  the  Holy  Ghost  to 
remain  with  us,  but  He  Himself  also  hath  promised  to  remain 
with  us  to  the  end  of  the  world.  Yet  the  Comforter  is  present 
invisibly,  because  He  has  not  taken  our  body.  But  Our  Lord 
is  not  only  an  object  of  sight,  but  He  may  be  touched  through 
the  awful  and  sacred  mysteries,  because  He  has  taken  our 
nature,  and  bears  it  for  ever."^  But  the  most  decisive  state- 
ments are  those  of  St.  Cyril,  because  nothing  was  more  fitted 
than  this  truth  to  counteract  the  Nestorian  heresy.  For  to 
show  that  Our  Lord's  Manhood  possessed  a  supernatural  mode 
of  presence,  was  a  forcible  argument  for  su2^posing  that  it  was 
personally  united  to  God.  And  St.  Cyril's  judgment  is  equi- 
valent to  that  of  the  whole  ancient  Church,  because  on  this 
topic  he  was  its  most  approved  exjiositor.  This  is  put  beyond 
doubt  by  the  sanction  bestowed  upon  him  by  the  Third  General 
Council.  So  that  if  we  consider  his  testimony  decisive  against 
that  new  view  of  Our  Lord's  nature  which  was  introduced  by 
Nestorius,  we  must  allow  it  to  be  conclusive  also  against  that 
theory  of  a   mere   Virtual   Presence  in  the   Holy  Eucharist, 

'  "  Trd\tv  avT^v  vfuv  rfjv  aapica  Kai  rb  aifia,  S<'  wv  (jvyyfu^?  f'y(v6/Jtr]v, 
fKSidcufii." — Jn  Joan.  Horn.  xlvi.  3,  vol.  viii.  p.  273.  Vide  also  Horn, 
xxiv.  4,  on  1  Cor.  vol.  x.  216. 

-  Catechet.  Orat.  sec.  37.  Vide  also,  In  Eccles.  Horn.  viii.  vol.  i. 
p.  457.  A. 

3  De  Errore  Profan.  Relig.  xxii.     Bib.  Pat.  iv.  173. 

■'   Id.  c.  xix.  p.  171. 

^  Gallandi,  Thes.  xiii.  p.  222. 


A  VIRTUAL  PRESENCE.  187 

which  it  was  reserved  for  Calvin,  so  many  centuries  later,  to 
originate. 

The  preceding  passages  are  sufficient  to  show  that  the  theory 
of  a  Virtual  Presence  does  not  come  up  to  the  language  which 
the  Fathers  employ  respecting  the  Holy  Eucharist.  But  one 
proof  further  may  be  adduced — the  different  language  which 
they  use  concerning  the  ordinance  of  Baptism.  Since  the  gift 
of  union  with  Christ  is  on  God's  part  bestowed  upon  all  in 
Baptism,  however  its  actual  reception  may  be  obstructed  by 
the  wilfulness  of  man,  the  operation  of  this  sacrament  is  wholly 
at  variance  with  the  system  of  Calvin,  which  supposes  the 
gifts  of  Grod  to  be  limited  by  His  own  absolute  decree.  And 
yet  the  doctrine  of  Baptism  presents  some  features  which  accord 
with  Calvin's  theory  of  a  Virtual  Presence.  The  union  with 
Christ  which  it  bestows  is  not  brought  about  by  the  efficacy 
of  His  Manhood,  but  by  the  power  of  His  Grodhead,  and  the 
operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  It  is  not  to  be  attributed, 
therefore,  to  any  virtue  which  proceeds  from  Our  Lord's  Flesh; 
yet  it  may  be  called  a  virtual  union  with  His  Body,  because  it 
is  a  real  union  with  Himself.  For  in  Baptism  there  is  a  real 
union  with  Christ,  as  the  Mystical  Head  of  the  Christian  Body ; 
and  it  is  this  fact,  which  renders  the  benefits  of  Baptism  specific 
and  permanent.  Thej'  are  specific,  for  this  ordinance  is  the 
act  whereby  men  "are  delivered  from  the  power  of  darkness 
and  translated  into  the  kingdom  of  God's  dear  Son."  They  are 
permanent,  because  the  relation  which  is  then  commenced, 
produces  effects  upon  the  whole  life.  Now  these  circumstances 
depend  upon  that  union  with  Christ,  which  He  bestows  upon 
His  Mystical  Body.  But  because  the  gift  is  bestowed  purely 
by  the  spiritual  operation  of  Our  Lord's  Godhead,  and  not 
through  the  intervention  of  His  Flesh,  therefore  it  is  bestowed 
through  the  ordinance  at  large ;  the  outward  part  is  not  de- 
scribed as  a  Sacramentum,  nor  the  inward  part  as  a  res  sacra- 
menti,  or  thing  signified.  And  for  the  same  reason,  consecration 
is  not  essential  to  its  validity. 

There  is  one  sense,  then,  in  which  Christ's  Body  is  virtually 


188  NOT  MERELY 

present  in  Baptism ;  because  since  men  are  thereby  joined  to 
Ilim,  tliey  are  virtually  or  by  implication  joined  to  His  Flesh. 
And  hence  it  has  followed  that  those  gi'aces,  which  before  the 
Day  of  Pentecost  dwelt  in  the  temple  of  Our  Lord's  Body,  have 
since  extended  themselves  to  His  members  also.  But  His  Body 
has  no  real  Presence  in  Baptism :  His  Flesh  is  not  the  medium 
through  which  His  gifts  are  bestowed,  in  the  same  maimer  as 
in  the  Holy  Eucharist.  Is  this  diversity,  then,  manifest  in  the 
expressions  of  the  Fathers?  Do  they  speak  of  Baptism  as 
connected  with  Our  Lord's  Manhood,  as  might  be  expected,  con- 
sidering that  it  is  the  means  whereby  men  are  engrafted  into 
their  Head ;  and  yet  abstain  from  those  direct  assertions  of  the 
Real  Presence  which  occur  respecting  the  Holy  Eucharist  ? ' 

Now  it  is  an  obvious  and  Scriptural  analogy,  to  compare  that, 
by  which  sins  are  washed  away,  with  the  true  purification — 
the  Blood  of  Christ.  We  find,  therefore,  the  continual  use  of 
such  expressions  as  those  of  St.  Csesarius :  "  When  men's  sins 
expii'e  in  the  sacred  font,  they  are,  as  it  were,  dijiped  in  the 
red  water  of  Egypt.  The  waters  are  red,  that  is,  they  are 
consecrated  with  the  Blood  of  Christ."  ^  And  so  St.  Jerome 
(on  Isaiah  i.  16)  represents  Our  Lord  as  saying,  "Be  ye  bap- 
tized in  ^ly  Blood,  by  the  laver  of  regeneration."  Men  are 
stated  to  be  "  dyed  in  Baptism  with  the  Blood  of  Christ ; " ' 
and  "  Baptism  is  red  with  the  Blood  of  Christ."  * 

Such  passages,  however,  which  occur  in  abundance,  may  be 
discriminated  from  the  language  used  respecting  the  Holy 
Eucharist  by  two  circumstances.  First — The  effect  spoken 
of  was  not  consequent  upon  consecration ;  so  that  though 
consecration,  where  it  was  possible,  was  always  employed,  it 
was  as  a  matter  of  order,  and  not  of  necessity.  And  therefore 
the  thing,  of  which  Our  Lord's  Blood  is  said  to  be  the  antitype, 

'  Tliis  distinction  between  Baptism  and  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  not 
considered  in  the  "Doctrine  of  the  Incarnation,"  though  it  is  alluded  to 
in  cap.  xiii.  p.  288,  note  1,  and  p.  290,  note. 

2  Horn.  vi.  I)e  I'aschat.     Bib.  I'at.  viii.  824. 

•■'  Prosper  de  I'rouiiss.  ii.  2.     Bib.  Pat.  viii.  18. 

''  S.  Aug.  in  Joan.  Trac.  xi.  4. 


A  VIRTUAL   PRESENCE.  189 

is  not  that  portion  of  the  element,  which  is  specially  employed, 
but  the  element  at  large.  Secondly — The  employment  of  such 
language  respecting  Baptism,  is  limited  to  the  use  made  of  the 
element  by  the  parties  :  water  bears  the  same  relation  to  the 
pixrifying  of  the  body,  which  the  Blood  of  Christ  bears  to  the 
soul :  there  is  not  a  word  which  implies  that  water  in  itself 
may  take  the  name  of  blood,  or  that  the  two  are  in  any  sense 
identical.  Yet  since  the  Fathei's  had  the  analogy  between  the 
two  objects  in  their  minds,  why  did  they  not  speak  of  the  water 
in  Baptism  as  being  really  blood,  as  they  constantly  identified 
the  element  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  with  Our  Lord's  Body  ?  In 
reference  to  Baptism,  however,  we  have  nothing  like  the  words 
of  St.  Ambrose  or  St.  Cyril.  "  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  Himself 
exclaims.  This  is  My  Body.  Before  the  heavenly  words  of 
blessing,  another  species  is  named ;  after  consecration  the  Body 
is  imjDlied.  He  Himself  calls  it  His  Blood.  Before  consecration 
it  is  called  another  thing.  After  consecration  it  is  called  Blood. 
And  you  say  Amen,  that  is,  it  is  true." ' 

These  are  expressions  to  which  there  is  no  kind  of  parallel  in 
the  case  of  Baptism.  And  the  difference  is  founded  upon  the 
fact,  that  the  expressions  of  Our  Lord  and  His  Apostles  re- 
specting the  one,  are  wholly  different  from  those  which  they 
employ  respecting  the  other.  In  the  case  of  Baptism,  we  have 
nothing  in  Scripture  which  resembles  Our  Lord's  words  of  Insti- 
tution, or  St.  Paul's  statement  that  the  thing  received  is  "  the 
Lord's  Body."  And  the  words  of  the  Fathers,  accordingly, 
show  that  there  was  a  belief  respecting  the  Holy  Eucharist 
which  did  not  exist  respecting  Baptism.  "What  seems  bread 
is  not  bread,  though  bread  by  taste,  but  the  Body  of  Christ ; 
and  that  which  seems  wine  is  not  wine,  though  the  taste  will 
have  it  so,  but  the  Blood  of  Christ."  "^ 

The  same  distinction  is  observable  in  a  dispute  which  arose 
among  the  followers  of  St.  Augustin  ;  and  which  was  called  forth 
by  the  question,  whether  Our  Lord's  promises  in  the  sixth  chapter 
of  St.  John  could  be  applicable  to  children,  till  they  had  re- 

1  De  Mysteriis,  ix.  -  S.  Cyril,  Myst.  Cat.  iv.  9. 


190  NOT   MERELY   A   VIRTUAL  PRESENCE. 

ceived  the  Holy  Eucharist.  The  j)oint  is  treated  })y  St.  Fulgentius, 
who  maintains  on  the  authority  of  St.  Augustin,  that  the  bap- 
tized may  be  said  to  be  partakers  of  Our  Lord's  Body  and  Blood. 
This  he  establishes,  not  by  saying  that  Our  Lord  is  present  in 
Baptism  in  the  same  manner  as  in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  nor  by 
asserting  that  the  water  in  which  men  are  baptized  is  Christ's 
Blood,  but  by  reference  to  the  fact  that  in  this  ordinance  men 
are  joined  to  the  Person  of  Christ.  He  asserts  a  virtual 
presence ;  in  that  lower  sense  of  the  word,  in  which  Christ's 
Body  may  be  said  to  be  virtualli/,  though  it  is  not  really 
present.  His  argument  is,  not  that  Christ's  Body  is  really 
present  in  Baptism,  but  that  since  His  Body  is  part  of  Himself, 
those  who  are  united  to  His  Person^  may  be  said  to  be  united 
to  His  Flesh.  This  distinction  between  the  real  Presence  of 
Christ,  and  a  mere  presence  by  implication,  coiTesponds  with 
the  diversity  which  has  been  observed  to  exist  between  the 
Holy  Eucharist  and  Baptism.  For  St.  Augustin,  whom  St.  Ful- 
gentius is  quoting,  asserts  Our  Lord's  Presence  in  the  Holy 
Eucharist  to  depend,  not  merely  upon  union  with  His  Person, 
but  upon  the  presence  of  His  Body? 

The  relation  between  these  two  ordinances  is  further  manifest 
from  St.  Cyril's  explanation  of  the  manner  in  which  the  one  is 
a  preparation  for  the  other.  He  refers  to  the  Church's  custom  * 
of  excluding  catechumens  from  the  Holy  Eucharist,  though  they 
had  made  profession  of  the  Christian  faith  ;  and  says  they  are 
not  prepared  for  such  a  sacred  gift  till  they  have  been  sanctified 
by  the  Holy  Ghost,  by  becoming  members  of  Christ's  Mystical 
Body.  To  this  rule,  he  says,  the  Chuicli  has  been  led  by  Our 
Lord's  words  to  Mary  Magdalen.  "  He  sends  away  Mary,  as 
not  having  yet  received  the  Spirit,  saying,  '  Touch  Me  not,  for  I 

^  "Qui  ergo  membrum  corporis  Christi  fit,  quomodo  non  accipit  quod 
ipse  fit,  quando  utique  illius  fit  veruin  corjioris  membrum,  eujus  corporis 
est  in  sacrificio  sacrainentum." — l)e  liapihiao  J-^hiopis,  cap.  xi. ;  Bih.  Pat. 
Mar.  ix.  177,  178.     He  refers  to  S.  August.  Sermo  ■272. 

-  "  Cor]ius  Christi  .  .  .  illud,  quod  ex  fructibus  terrie  acceptum,  et  prece 
mystica  consecratnm  ....  non  sanctificatur  ut  sit  tam  magnum  sacramen- 
tum,  nisi  operante  invisibiliter  Spiritu  Dei." — De  Trinitate,  iii.  10. 


DOCTEINE   OF   THE   REAL   PRESENCE.  191 

am  not  yet  ascended  to  My  Father,'  that  is,  I  have  not  yet  sent 
the  Spirit  unto  you.  This  saying  has  been  a  guide  to  the 
Church."^  Thus  does  he  discriminate  between  the  gifts  be- 
stowed in  these  two  ordinances,  and  affirms  that  the  spiritual 
relation  to  Christ  which  is  gained  by  union  with  His  Person,  is 
a  preparation  for  the  reception  of  His  Body.  So  that  after 
Baptism  "nothing  hinders  them,"  as  he  expresses  it,  "from 
touching  Our  Saviour  Christ."  And  elsewhere  he  sums  up  the 
contrast  in  a  few  words,  observing  that  in  Baptism  men  are 
made  members  of  Christ  through  the  gift  of  His  Spirit,  but 
that  His  Presence  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  brought  about 
through  the  Presence  of  His  Body.  "  Baptism  is  truly  Christ's 
and  from  Christ,  and  the  force  of  the  Mystical  Eucharist  arises 
to  us  from  His  sacred  Flesh." '^ 

The  contrast,  then,  which  is  afforded  by  their  expressions 
respecting  Baptism,  adds  force  to  the  assertions  of  the  Fathers 
respecting  the  Holy  Eucharist.  Thus  on  both  sides  are  we  led 
to  the  conclusion,  that  neither  the  statements  of  Scripture  nor 
the  belief  of  the  Church  are  satisfied  by  the  theory  of  a  Virtual, 
any  more  than  by  tha^;  of  a  Symbolical  Presence. 


CHAPTER    IX. 


THE   TESTIMONY  OF  ANTIQUITY  TO  THE  DOCTEINE   OE  THE 
EEAL  PRESENCE. 

In  the  last  chapter  it  was  shown  that  neither  a  merely  Sym- 
bolical  nor   a  Virtual    Presence    was  sufficient  to  satisfy  the 

^  In  Joau.  lib.  xii.  vol.  iv.  p.  1086.  Firmilian,  when  complaining  that 
persons  were  admitted  to  Conxmunion,  as  he  imagined,  without  Baptism, 
objects  that  "non  ablutis  per  ecclesiae  lavacrum  sordibus  ....  contin- 
gant  corpus  et  sanguinem  Domini." — 8.  Cyprian,  Ep.  Ixxv.  21,  p.  149. 

-  In  Joan.  xii.  vol.  iv.  p.  1074.  So  Germanus,  "6V  hia  tov  ^anria fiaros 
hi^&jxtvov,  Tovrov  \al3eiv  ndvTOTe  «at  ex*"' ''"'  (o6Utv  ahoviJiida." — Gallan. 
xiii.  p.  226. 


192  TESTIMONY   OF  ANTIQUITY 

language  of  the  Fathers  :  it  remains  to  show  that  their  doctrine 
was  that  of  tlie  Real  Presence. 

Now,  in  turning  in  this  manner  from  a  negative  to  a  positive 
inquiry,  from  the  considei'ation  what  they  did  not,  to  what  they 
did  hold,  it  will  he  well  to  observe  what  is  that  kind  of  evidence 
which  we  have  a  right  to  expect,  and  which  alone  will  satisfy 
the  conditions  of  the  argument.  If  the  Real  Presence  was  truly 
believed  in  the  Ancient  Church,  like  the  fact  that  Our  Lord 
is  an  object  of  worship,  or  that  every  Person  in  the  Ever-blessed 
Trinity  is  truly  God,  it  will  show  itself,  like  each  of  these 
truths,  in  various  forms,  and  under  different  modifications,  A 
shadow  can  be  cast  only  on  one  spot,  and  in  one  form,  but 
a  substance  has  several  sides,  and  may  be  viewed,  therefore, 
under  several  aspects.  If  this  doctrine,  then,  was  a  constituent 
part  of  the  belief  of  the  Ancient  Church,  we  may  expect  that  it 
would  come  out  in  various  ways,  according  to  the  different 
character  and  circumstances  of  those  by  whom  it  was  expressed. 
Still  this  variety  must  consist  with  such  accordance,  as  to  show 
that  the  thing  spoken  of  was  a  single  object — the  diversities  of 
Antiquity  must  throw  light  upon  its  consent. 

The  best  method  of  discovering  how  far  this  was  reallj'  the 
case,  will  be  to  take  a  brief  survey  of  the  history  of  the  first 
seven  centuries ;  to  consider  what  were  the  several  systems  of 
thought  which  prevailed  respecting  the  Holy  Eucharist,  and 
what  the  expressions  which  they  severally  suggested.  It  will 
be  found  that  there  were  five  different  ways  in  which  their 
positions,  or  their  characters,  led  as  many  different  parties  to 
speak  of  this  sacrament.  Their  real  accordance  amidst  such 
apparent  diversity,  affords  the  surest  proof  that  their  funda- 
mental idea  was  the  same.  And  this  will  be  confirmed  when 
we  apply  the  two  criteria  proposed  in  the  last  chapter  (p.  183) 
to  these  several  parties.  For  it  will  be  found  that  they  all 
agreed,  first,  that  the  consecrated  elements  were  entitled  to 
especial  reverence,  and  secondly,  that  all  who  received  the 
consecrated  elements  received  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ. 

We  begin  of  course  with  the  ante-Niceue  jicriod.     During 


TO  THE   REAL  PRESENCE.  193 

the  first  two  centuries,  it  would  seem  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
Real  Presence  was  received  with  the  same  unreasoning  acqui- 
escence as  the  cardinal  truths  respecting  Our  Lord's  nature. 
The  constituent  parts  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  were  not  as  yet 
explained  in  a  formal  manner,  nor  were  speculative  conclusions 
deduced  from  it  in  the  same  degree  as  in  a  later  age.  The 
notices  which  occur,  are  simple  statements  of  a  fact,  about  which 
it  seems  to  have  been  supposed  that  all  Christians  were  agreed. 
Such  is  St.  Ignatius's  observation  that  the  Docetae  "  abstain 
from  the  Holy  Eucharist,  because  they  do  not  admit  it  to  be 
the  Flesh  of  Our  Saviour  Christ,  which  suffered  for  our  sins."^ 
Such  is  Justin's  statement  that  the  Eucharist  is  "not  common 
bread,  or  common  drink,"  but  that  "  we  have  been  taught  that 
tiie  food  which  receives  the  eucharistic  blessing  through  His 
words  of  prayer,  which  by  way  of  nutriment  is  changed  into 
our  blood  and  flesh,  is  the  Flesh  and  Blood  of  the  Incarnate 
Jesus." ^  "Being  both  flesh  and  bread,"  says  St.  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  "He  giveth  Himself,  being  both,  to  us  to  eat."^ 
"  When  the  mingled  cup,  and  the  bread,  which  is  the  produce 
of  growth,  receives  the  Word  of  God"  [i.e.  the  blessing),  "and 
the  Eucharist  becomes  the  Body  of  Christ,  and  of  these  the 
substance  of  our  flesh  has  its  increase  and  consistency,  how  can 
they  say  that  the  flesh,  which  is  nourished  by  the  Body  and 
Blood  of  the  Lord,  and  becomes  a  member  of  Him,  is  not 
capable  of  the  gift  of  Grod,  which  is  eternal  life."*  Such  is 
St.  Irenseus's  mode  of  speaking;  for  he  held  that  "when  the 
bread  which  is  taken  from  the  earth  receives  the  invocation 
of  God,  it  is  no  longer  common  bread,  but  Eucharist,  consisting 
of  two  things,  an  earthly  and  a  heavenly."  ^ 

Such  was  the  manner  in  which  the  Fathers  of  the  second 
century  understood  St.  Paul's  assertion :  "  the  bread  which  we 
break"  is  "the  communion  of  the  Body  of  Christ;"  "the  cup 
of  blessing,  which   we  bless,"   "the   communion  of  the  Blood 

^  Ad  Smyrnseos,  sec.  6.  ^  Apol.  i.  66. 

3  Fragment,  vol.  ii.  1018.     (Pott.) 

*  S.  Iren£eua,  v.  2,  3.  *  Ibid.  iv.  18.  5. 


194  TESTIMONY   OF  ANTIQUITY 

of  Christ."  Neither  was  there  any  opposition  to  these  state- 
ments, although  Tertullian  uses  expressions  on  this  subject, 
as  he  does  likewise  respecting  the  Persons  in  the  Blessed 
Trinity,  which  require  explanation.  But  he  agrees  with  the 
other  writers  of  his  age  in  calling  the  Holy  Eucharist  "the 
Body  of  the  Lord  ;"^  it  is  "His  Body,"  which  those  who  pro- 
fane the  Holy  Eucharist  "assail  '""^  and  he  speaks  of  the  Gen- 
tile converts  as  "  fed  with  the  richness  of  the  Lord's  Body,  that 
is,  with  the  Eucharist."^  He  adds,  also,  various  particulars 
respecting  its  daily  reception,*  and  respecting  the  reverence 
with  which  it  was  partaken.  And  the  same  mode  of  speak- 
ing may  be  found  in  the  next  century.  Christ  "  has  prepared 
His  table,"  says  St.  Hippolytus ;  "  that  is,  the  promised  know- 
ledge of  the  sacred  Trinity,  and  also  His  precious  and  pure 
Body  and  Blood,  which  are  daily  prepared  in  His  mystical 
and  divine  table."  "  Come,  eat  My  bread,  and  drink  the  wine 
which  I  have  mingled  for  you.  His  own  divine  Flesh,  and 
His  precious  Blood  He  hath  given  us,  He  says,  to  eat  and 
drink  for  the  remission  of  sins."  ® 

A  somewhat  different  view  of  things  begins  to  open  upon  us 
when  we  pass  the  time  of  the  Nicene  Council,  and  when  the 
Church  had  become  in  an  increasing  measure  a  home  to  the 
thought  and  intellect  of  the  age.  We  find  the  Liturgies  com- 
mented upon,  not  only,  as  probably  was  always  the  case,  in 
popular  addresses,  but  in  a  literary  work  (St.  Cyril's  Cateche- 
tical Lectures),  which  continues  to  this  day  to  be  the  standard 
of  instruction  in  the  Eastern  Church,  And  now,  then,  we  meet 
with  something  more  like  an  explanation  of  that  which  in  the 
preceding  age  had  simply  been  asserted,  namely,  that  after 
consecration  the  thing  present  upon  the  altar  is  truly  the  Body 
and  Blood  of  Christ.  St.  Cyril  introduces  the  further  idea,  that 
this  is  owing  to  a  cJiange  in  the  elements,  which  is  brought 
about  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost.     '""We  call  upon  the 

'  De  Idololatria,  7.  ^  Ibid. 

3  De  Pudicitia,  9.  ■•  De  Oratione,  14, 

^  Gallandi,  ii,  4tt8. 


TO  THE  EEAL  PRESENCE."  195 

merciful  God  to  send  forth  His  Holy  Spirit  upon  the  gifts 
lying  before  Him  ;  that  He  may  make  the  bread  the  Body 
of  Christ,  and  the  wine  the  Blood  of  Christ ;  for  whatsoever 
the  Holy  Ghost  has  touched,  is  sanctified  and  changed."^ 

The  reality  of  this  change  was  no  doubt  admitted  by  all 
Christians  during  the  three  first  centuries ;  for  they  believed 
that  what  the  j^riest  presented  previously  to  consecration  was 
mere  bread  and  wine,  whereas  that  which  he  took  in  his  hands 
after  consecration,  was  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  under 
the  forms  of  bread  and  wine.  But  there  was  an  absence  of 
those  distinct  assertions  of  a  change,  which  appear  after  the 
Liturgies  had  been  commented  upon  by  St.  Cyril,  and  which 
occur  especially  in  the  Eastern  Church.  And  with  this  is  con- 
nected the  further  fact,  that  this  idea  of  a  change  is  put  more 
prominently  forward  in  Eastern  than  in  Western  Liturgies. 
"  Make  this  bread  the  very  precious  Body  of  Our  Lord  and 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  ....  and  this  cup  the  very  precious 
Blood  of  Our  Lord  and  God  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  .... 
changing  them  by  Thine  Holy  Ghost."  ^  Whereas  the  Liturgy 
of  Gelasius  says  only ;  "  ut  nobis  Corpus  et  Sanguis  fiat  dilec- 
tissimi  Filii  tui  Domini  Dei  nostri  Jesu  Christi."  ^  This  was 
not  owing  to  any  difference  in  doctrine :  it  was  shown  (caj).  iii.) 
that  the  reality  of  the  change  was  asserted  by  St.  Ambrose  and 
St.  Gaudentius  in  Italy,  as  directly  as  by  St.  Cyril  and  St.  Gre- 
gory Nyssen  in  the  east :  and  probably  the  diversity  between 
the  liturgies  arose  chiefly  from  the  absence  of  a  direct  invocation 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  Roman  Liturgy.  But  however  the 
difference  arose,  it  will  be  found  that  the  terms  of  the  Eastern 
writers  are  far  more  express  than  those  of  the  Latins,  and  imply 
a  change  in  the  ingredients,  or  constituent  parts  of  the  con- 
secrated elements.     Thus  we  have  such  words  as  that  the  ele- 


1  Fifth  Myst.  Cat.  7. 

^  S.  Basil's  Liturgy.  The  words  of  S.  Chrysostom  are  nearly  identical. 
— Neale,  Introd.  p.  579. 

^  Muratori,  Lit.  Vet.  i.  696.  Nearly  the  same  expression  occurs  in  the 
Ambrosian  Liturgy,  lb.  133,  and  in  the  Missale  Francorum,  lb.  ii.  693. 

0  2 


196  TESTIMONY   OF  ANTIQUITY 

meuts  fitraTTOiovvTai,  ^  neTappvdfxiCovTai,  '  neraaroixeiovvrai,  which 
(especially  the  last)  are  far  more  emphatic  than  transjigurare* 
or  transformare,^  which  we  find  in  Latin  writers. 

The  tendency,  then,  of  that  which  perhajDS  may  not  im- 
properly be  called  the  Eastern  School,  was  to  dwell  simply 
upon  the  cJiange  effected  in  the  elements  by  means  of  conse- 
cration. The  example  set  by  St,  Cyril  was  followed  by  St. 
Gregory  Nyssen,  St.  Chrysostom,  St.  John  Damascene,  and 
other  Fathers.  Now,  though  their  statements  do  not  in  reality 
go  beyond  that  which  was  received  by  the  whole  Church,  yet 
it  is  obvious  that  such  expressive  phrases,  if  looked  at  by  them- 
selves, might  be  perverted  so  as  to  interfere  with  the  analogy 
of  the  faith.  For  it  might  be  supposed  that  the  change  was  not 
only  real,  which  it  doubtless  is,  but  that  it  was  a  common  change, 
and  accordant  with  the  usual  order  of  things.  Now  such  a  mis- 
take would  lead  to  erroneous  opinions,  both  as  to  the  sacred  gift, 
which  is  bestowed  in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  and  as  to  the  objects  of 
sense,  through  which  that  gift  is  communicated.  In  relation  to 
each,  there  are  two  errors  against  which  it  is  necessary  to  guard. 

First — If  this  change  were  conformable  to  the  ordinary  order 
of  things,  as  when  water  is  changed  into  ice  by  crystallization, 
it  might  be  supposed  that  Christ's  Body  was  not  that  very  Body 
which  suifered  on  the  cross,  but  a  new  or  additional  one,  formed 
out  of  bread  and  wine.  So  that  Christ's  Presence  in  the  Holy 
Eucharist  would  not  be  the  carrying  out  the  purposes  of  the 
Incarnation,  but  the  actual  repetition  of  that  great  event.  Such 
is  the  notion  attributed  (though  very  unjustly)  by  various 
German"  critics  to  Justin  Martyr.     When  Gi'abe^   maintains 

'  Damascen.  de  Fid.  Orth.  iv.  ]  3,  p.  269.     Theophylact.  in  Matt.  25. 

2  S.  Chrys.  de  Prod.  Juda3.  i.  6,  vol.  ii.  p.  384,  and  lb.  ii.  6,  p.  394. 

^  S.  Greg.  Nyss.  Cat.  Or.     Tbeophylact.  in  Marc.  14. 

*  S.  Anibros.  de  Fide,  iv.  10,  n.  124. 

•''  Mone's  Messen.  p.  24.  So  "panem  mutatum  in  carne,"  i.e.  camem. 
—Muhilhni  Lit.  Call.  p.  300. 

•'  "Justin"  8a<^  Seinische  "acbtet  das  Abendmable  gleicbsam  fur  eine 
wiederbolte  Incarnation."  "  Der  giittlicbe  Logos  mit  Brot  und  Wein  als 
aeinem  Leibe  und  Bhite  in  Verbinduug  tritt." — Kahnifi,  u.  s.  p.  ISl. 

'  Grabe  describes  this  school  of  writers  as  teacliing  that  the  consecrated 


TO   THE   REAL   PRESENCE.  197 

that  the  school  of  writers  who  followed  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem, 
supposed  that  Our  Lord's  Body  was  in  this  way  something 
su2)eradded  to  that  in  which  He  suffered,  he  fails  to  do  justice 
to  the  exjiressious  by  which  these  writers  guard  against  such 
misconstruction.  "  The  bread  and  the  wine,  and  water,"  says 
Damascene,  "  which  by  eating  and  drinking  are  changed  into 
the  body  and  blood  of  him  who  eats  and  drinks  them,  do  not 
become  another  body  besides  his  former  one."^  And  St.  Gregory 
Nyssen  speaks  of  "  that  Body  which  was  endowed  with  immor- 
tality by  God,"  ^  as  the  thing  which  is  present  in  us  by  the 
Holy  Eucharist.  Yet  the  language  of  this  school  led  in  some 
instances  to  such  an  error ;  for  the  mistake  occurs  ^  in  a  work 
which,  though  the  composition  apparently  of  an  imitator  of 
Damascene,  has  yet  sufficient  resemblance  to  his  style  to  have 
been  attributed  formerly  to  himself. 

Secondly — If  bread  and  wine  were  changed  in  a  common 
manner  into  Our  Lord's  Body  and  Blood,  these  sacred  objects 
must  be  supposed  to  be  subjected  to  conditions  and  circum- 
stances, from  which  they  are  plainly  exempt.  Hence  Anastasius 
Sinaita  {supra,  chap.  v.  p.  88),  in  whom  the  tendency  to  regard 
the  change  as  a  common  one  reached  its  extreme  point,  speaks 
of  Our  Lord's  Body,  when  present  in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  as 
though  it  were  corruptible ;  whereas  corruption,  *  as  well  as 
any  other  polluting  circumstance,  can  extend  no  further  than 
to  the  objects  of  sense,  which  are  the   ordained  channels  for 

bread  "ipsam  ejus  substantiam  in  carnem  transformare,  qu£e  Christi  caro 
sit,  et  cum  ilia,  quse  ex  B.  Virginis  utero  prodiit,  et  cruci  suffixa,  inque 
coelum  sublata  fuit,  eadem  fiat  per  knav^-qaiv,  quodque  eundem  Spiritum 
vitas  in  se  habeat ;  sicuti  panis  quern  Servator  in  terris  comedit,  vi  na- 
turalise caloris  in  carnem  ejus  vertebatur,"  &c.  He  refers  to  S.  Cyril  of 
Jerusalem,  B.  Gregory  Nyssen,  and  S.  John  Damascene. — Grahe  on 
tS.  Irenieus,  v.  2. 

1  Damasc.  de  Fide  Orthod.  iv.  13,  p.  270. 

2  Orat.  Catech.  vide  supra,  p.  72. 

^  "  ds  itrav^rjaiv  tov  awnaros  rov  XpiffTOv.^^ — Epis.  ad  Zach.  Episc. 
Doar.     In  Damasc.  vol.  i.  p.  656. 

■*  "  Caro  Salvatoris  manducata  non  corrumpitur,  nee  sanguis  hie  potatus 
consumitur." — Magnetis  Fragmentum,  Gall.  iii.  542.  Vide  Summa  Tlieol. 
1.77.  7. 


198  TESTIMONY   OF  ANTIQUITY 

its  communication.  And  the  same  error  appears  in  the  imi- 
tator ^  of  Damascene  ah-eady  quoted,  who  affirms  also  that  Our 
Lord's  Body  may  be  broken  in  this  sacrament ;  whereas  that 
which  is  broken  can  be  only  the  object  of  sense,  through  which 
His  Presence  is  conveyed. 

These  misconceptions  respecting  the  inward  part  in  the  Holy 
Eucharist,  are  connected  with  the  errors  respecting  the  outvmrd 
part,  against  which  it  is  necessary  to  guard.  For  if  the  change 
be  looked  at  as  if  it  were  a  common  one,  the  outward  part  will 
be  entirely  lost  sight  of,  and  those  offices  will  be  forgotten, 
which  it  still  performs.  This  tendency  shows  itself  in  two  ways 
in  the  writers  before  us.  For,  first,  we  find  some  of  them  to 
have  denied  to  the  outward  part  the  titles  by  which  it  is 
properly  designated ;  and,  secondly,  we  find  a  forgetfulness  of 
the  functions  which  it  actually  discharges. 

First — It  has  been  shown  how  fitly  the  outward  part  may  be 
called  a  type,  or  antitype,  of  that  inward  reality  with  which  it 
is  combined.  So  it  is  by  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  himself.  {Sup. 
cap.  viii.  p.  164.)  But  by  other  writers  of  this  school  the  fact 
is  either  forgotten  or  denied.  It  is  forgotten,  apparently,  by 
Anastasius  Sinaita,  who  cannot  be  censured,  of  course,  for  saying 
that  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  not  merely  a  figure  ^  of  Christ,  but 
who  fails  to  add  that  it  is  truly  a  figure,  though  not  a  figure 
only.  But  Damascene  not  only  denies  the  outward  part  to 
be  a  figure  ^  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  but  affirms  that  if 
any  writers  "  have  called  the  bread  and  wine  antitypes  of  the 
Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,"  *  they  must  have  referred  only  to 
its  state  previously  to  consecration.  And  the  same  assertion 
was  made  at  the  Second  Council  of  Nice.  '  The  statement  has 
been  observed  to  be  erroneous  i^sup.  p.  166);  but  it  shows  that 
a  due  weight  was  not  assigned  to  the  elements,  through  a 
too  exclusive  attention  to  the  fact  of  their  change.  And  later 
Greek  writers  show  the  same  forgetfulness  that  a  sacrament 

'  De  Corp.  et  Sang.  Christi.     In  Damasc.  vol.  i.  p.  658. 

-  IJib.  Pat.  ix.  855.  ^  De  Fide  Ortliod.  iv.  13,  p.  271. 

'  De  Fide  Orthod.  iv.  13,  p.  273.  ^  Actio  vi.  Harduin,  iv.  370. 


TO   THE   EEAL  PRESENCE.  199 

by  its  very  nature  is  twofold ;  and  that  its  outward  sign  is 
intended  to  be  emblematic  of  its  inward  reality.  Thus 
Nicephorus  ^  objects  to  the  application  of  such  expressions 
to  the  Holy  Eucharist,  on  the  ground  that  the  same  thing 
cannot  be  both  an  image  and  a  reality ;  and  the  same  objection 
was  made  at  the  Second  Council  of  Nice.  ^  And  on  the  same 
principle  Theophylact  ^  appears  to  object  to  the  use  of  the  word 
figure  in  relation  to  this  sacrament. 

Secondly — These  writers  fail  to  do  justice  to  another  con- 
sideration, which  must  enter  into  the  idea  of  the  Holy 
Eucharist,  if  it  be  supposed  to  consist  of  an  outward  part, 
which  is  an  object  to  the  senses,  as  well  as  of  an  inward  part, 
which  is  an  object  to  faith  and  to  the  mind.  Since  the  process 
of  nutrition  is  open  to  sensible  experiment,  the  property  of 
nourishing  the  body  of  the  receiver  must  be  one  of  those 
qualities  in  the  consecrated  elements,  which  must  be  left 
unchanged.  Otherwise,  the  alteration  will  extend  not  merely 
to  that  inward  part,  which  cannot  fall  within  the  region  of 
the  senses,  but  to  that  outward  part  also,  of  which  they  can 
take  cognizance.  But  an  exclusive  attention  to  the  notion 
of  a  change,  was  not  unlikely  to  lead  to  expressions,  if  not  to 
thoughts,  incompatible  with  this  fundamental  characteristic 
of  a  sacrament.  "  This  holy  bread,"  says  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusa- 
lem, "  is  supersubstantial,  that  is,  appointed  for  the  substance 
of  the  soul.  For  this  bread  goeth  not  into  the  belly,  and  is 
cast  out  into  the  draught,  but  is  diffused  through  all  thou  art, 
for  the  benefit  of  body  and  soul."  *  St.  Cyril  probably  designed 
to  express  nothing  but  the  obvious  truth,  that  the  inward  part 
in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  i.e.  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  is 
not  subject  to  bodily  digestion.  But  the  absence  of  any  state- 
ment that  the  outward  part,  or  that  which  is  an  object  of  sense, 

'  "  Quod  enim  est  alicujus  imago,  hoc  corpus  ejus  esse  non  potest :  et 
rursus  quod  est  corpus,  non  potest  esse  ejus  imago." — jS.  Niceph.  de  Cheru- 
hinis,  Bib.  Pat.  xiv.  94. 

^  Actio  vi.  Harduin,  iv.  371. 

3  In  Matt.  XXV.  p.  162.     In  Marc.  xiv.  p.  272. 

*  Myst.  Cat.  V.  15. 


200  TESTIMONY   OF   ANTIQUITY 

continues  to  discharge  the  functions  of  animal  nutriment,  would 
seem  as  if  this  truth  were  discouraged,  if  not  denied. 

A  still  stronger  statement  occurs  in  a  Homily  attributed  to 
St.  Chrysostom.  "  Behold  not  that  it  is  bread,  nor  think  that 
it  is  wine.  For  it  does  not,  like  other  food,  pass  into  the 
draught.  God  forbid  that  you  should  think  so.  But  as  wax, 
when  it  is  brought  into  contact  with  fire,  suffers  no  diminution 
nor  increase  of  its  substance,  so  imagine  that  the  mysteries  are 
absorbed  in  the  substance  of  the  body."  '  The  writer  may  have 
meant  nothing,  but  that  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  are  not 
received  by  the  body  as  corporeal  food,  but  his  statement,  like  a 
parallel  one  in  St.  John  Damascene,'^  countenances  the  idea  that 
this  cannot  be  affirmed  of  either  part  in  the  Holy  Eucharist. 
Such  assertions  were  certainly  made  by  later  writers  in  the 
West,  as  may  be  seen  from  the  works  of  Guitmund,^  Algerus,^ 
and  William  of  Paris. '^ 

Such  were  the  errors  which  resulted  from  too  exclusive  an 
attention  to  the  undoubted  truth,  that  the  elements  in  the  Holy 
Eucharist  are  changed  by  consecration.  The  School  of  St.  Cyril 
of  Jerusalem,  St.  Gregory  Nj^ssen,  and  St.  John  Damascene,  in 
which  this  truth  was  put  so  prominently  forward,  has  been  here 
called  the  Eastern   School,  both  because  its  leading  members 

'  De  Pcenit.  Horn.  ix.  vol.  ii.  p.  350. 

-  De  Fide  Orth.  iv.  13,  p.  272. 

3  De  Veritate  Euch.  ii.     Bib.  Pat.  xviii.  450. 

■*  De  Sacramento,  ii.  1.     Bib.  Pat.  xxi.  276. 

^  "  Manifestiim  est  post  benedictionem  sacerdotalem  rite  factam  in 
altaris  meusa,  nee  panem  esse*  corporis,  hoc  est  materialem,  nee  vinum. 
Ex  tunc  enim  mensa  est  animarum  :  Totum  aiitem  quod  ante  in  ea  est, 
vel  fit,  est  pneparatio,  sive  preparatorium  ad  spiritualem  refectionem, 
et  mensam  animarum.  Placuit  autem  clementissimo  miseratori  omnium 
Deo  declarare  istud  congruenti  et  deeenti  miraculo.  Cum  enim  quidam 
formis  illis  panis  et  vini  eubesse  crederet  veras  panis  materialis  et  vini 
substantias,  aliis  cibis  uti  nolebat ;  et  propter  hoc  in  multa  quantitate 
conficiebat,  juxta  quod  ad  sustentationem  corporis  sibi  sutticere  ?estimabat. 
Hinc  est  quod  iufi-a  j>aucos  dies  deficiens  absque  alterius  morbi  oceasione, 
ipso  experimento  doctus  dicere  potuit  non  subesse  formis  illis,  quod  corpus 
ejus  nutrire,  vel  sustentare  valeret,  cum  substantiam  impossibile  sit  nu- 
triri  accidentibus." — Gulielmus  Parmeiisis  de  Sacramento  EucJiaristuv, 
cap.  i.  p.  415. 


TO   THE   REAL  PRESENCE.  201 

were  Orientals,  and  Ijecause  it  has  a  peculiar  relation  to  Greek 
Liturgies.  But  there  were  two  other  schools,  diffused  through- 
out the  whole  Church,  though  their  chief  writers  were  also 
Oriental,  which  served  to  qualify  this  tendency.  These  Schools 
consisted,  resj)ectively,  of  the  opponents  of  the  Eutychian  and 
the  Nestorian  heresies :  the  one  of  which  was  led  to  guard 
especially  against  errors  respecting  the  outward  part,  and 
the  other  against,  an  erroneous  estimate  of  the  inward  part, 
of  the  Holy  Eucharist. 

The  Holy  Eucharist  is  so  intimately  related  to  the  doctrine 
of  Our  Lord's  Person,  that  it  is  not  surprising  that  those  who 
defended  the  reality  and  union  of  His  two  natures,  should  have 
bethought  themselves  of  it  as  a  fitting  illustration  of  their 
meaning.  At  the  same  time  nothing  can  show  more  clearly 
how  general  was  the  belief  in  that  sacramental  oneness,  by 
which  the  inward  and  outward  parts  are  united  in  the  Holy 
Eucharist,  than  that  it  should  have  been  assumed  to  offer  the 
nearest  analogy  to  that  personal  union,  whereby  Godhead  and 
Manhood  are  united  in  Christ.  Of  course  the  Personal  bond  is 
one  thing,  the  Sacramental  another :  each  is  peculiar  and  with- 
out parallel ;  but  they  are  analogous  as  regards  the  mystery  of 
their  operation,  and  the  reality  of  their  effects.  Of  this  circum- 
stance the  opponents  of  the  Eutychian  heresy  availed  themselves. 
Their  object  was  to  maintain  that  though  Godhead  and  Man- 
hood were  truly  united  in  the  one  Person  of  Christ,  yet  that 
the  human  was  not  so  absorbed  in  the  Divine  nature  as  to 
be  altogether  lost.  They  referred,  then,  to  the  Holy  Eucharist, 
in  which  the  inward  part  was  allowed  to  be  the  real  Body 
of  Christ,  while  yet,  they  said,  the  outward  elements  of  bread 
and  wine  had  still  their  function  to  discharge,  and  were  not 
wholly  lost.  The  chief  writer  of  this  school  is  Theodoret,  who 
dwells  upon  the  truth  that  the  bread  and  wine,  regarded  as 
objects  of  sense,  are  unaltered  by  consecration,  and  who  argues 
thence  that  Our  Lord's  Body  and  Blood  are  not  lost  in  that 
nature  of  Deity,  with  which  they  are  united.  The  orthodox 
and  Eutychian  are  introduced  in  Dialogue. 


202  TESTIMONY   OF  ANTIQUITY 

"Eutychian.  After  the  consecration  what  do  you  call  these 
things  V  Orthodox.  The  Body  and  the  Blood  of  Jesus  Christ. 
U.  And  do  you  believe  that  you  partake  of  the  Body  of 
Christ,  and  of  His  Blood?  0.  Yes,  I  believe  it.  £J.  As 
therefore  the  Body  and  Blood  of  the  Lord  are  one  thing  before 
the  priestly  invocation,  but  after  the  priestly  invocation  they 
are  changed,  and  become  another,  so  Our  Lord's  Body,  since 
His  taking  up,  has  been  changed  into  the  Divine  essence. 
0.  You  are  taken  in  your  own  net.  For  after  the  consecra- 
tion the  mystical  symbols  are  not  transferred  from  their  own 
nature.  For  they  remain  in  their  former  essence  (oia-las),  and 
shape  and  appearance,  and  are  objects  of  sight  and  touch,  as 
they  were  before.  But  they  are  understood  to  be  that  which 
they  have  become,  and  are  believed  to  be  so,  and  are  worshipped, 
as  being  those  things  which  they  are  believed  to  be."  * 

Similar  statements  occur  in  Gelasius's  work  against  Eutyches 
and  Nestorius,  in  the  letter  to  Csesarius,  which  is  attributed  to 
St.  Chrysostom,  and  in  Ephraim  of  Antioch,  whose  words  were 
quoted  (p.  83).  "The  sacraments  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of 
Christ  which  we  take,"  says  St.  Gelasius,  "  are  a  divine  thing, 
because  by  the  same  we  are  made  partakers  of  the  divine  nature. 
And  yet  there  does  not  cease  to  be  the  substance  or  nature  of 
bread  and  wine.'"^  To  the  same  effect  is  the  letter  to  Csesarius: 
"  Christ  is  Grod  and  man.     God,  because  He  was  impassible, 

man  because  He  suffered Just  as  before  the  bread  is 

sanctified,  we  call  it  bread,  but  when  divine  grace  sanctifies  it 
through  the  medium  of  the  priest,  it  is  freed  from  the  title  of 
bread,  and  thought  worthy  of  the  title  of  Our  Lord's  Body, 
even  though  the  nature  of  bread  has  remained  in  it ;  and  we  do 
not  speak  of  two  bodies,  but  the  one  Body  of  the  Son."' 

The  opponents  of  Eutyches,  then,  were  led  to  make  such 
assertions  respecting  the  outward  part  in  the  Holy  Eucharist, 
as  qualified  any  tendency  to  forget  its  existence,  to  which  the 

'  Dialogus  Secundus.  ^  Bib.  Pat.  Max.  viii.  703. 

^  S.  Chrysostom,  vol.  iii.  p.  744.  If  this  be  really  the  work  of  S.  Chry- 
sostom, wliich  is  very  imcertain,  it  must  be  supposed  that  in  writing 
against  the  Apollinariatis  he  employed  the  same  language  which  was 
afterwards  used  against  the  Eutychiaus. 


TO  THE   REAL  PRESENCE.  203 

language  of  the  Eastern  School  might  have  given  rise.  But 
it  is  obvious  that  mistakes  respecting  the  inward  part,  or  thing 
signified,  would  have  been  far  more  important.  And  these 
were  in  like  manner  corrected,  through  that  line  of  thought 
which  was  naturally  taken  by  the  opponents  of  Nestorius. 
Since  their  object  was  to  prove  that  He  who  discharges  the 
functions  of  Mediation  in  His  fleshly  nature,  is  personally 
identical  with  the  Eternal  Word,  nothing  was  more  directly 
to  the  purpose  than  to  show  how  this  truth  is  exhibited  in 
the  Holy  Eucharist.  Hence  those  many  passages  already 
quoted  in  this  work,  in  which  St.  Cyril  affirms  the  effect  of 
the  Holy  Eucharist  to  depend  upon  the  properties,  which  Our 
Lord's  Manhood  has  acquired  through  its  personal  oneness  with 
Godhead.  All  these  passages  are  summed  up,  as  it  were,  in 
his  11th  Anathema,  directed  against  those  who  do  not  allow 
that  the  "  Flesh  of  Our  Lord  is  life-giving,"  "  because  it 
has  by  personal  propriety  become  identified  with  the  Woi"d, 
who  is  able  to  give  life  to  all  things."^  So  that  not  only 
has  Our  Lord  consecrated  His  Body  and  Blood  to  be  the 
medium  of  His  own  Presence  in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  but  the 
value  of  this  ordinance  is  asserted  to  depend  upon  the  fact, 
that  the  Humanity  thus  present  is  the  vei-y  same  which,  by 
the  Incarnation,  was  taken  into  God.  And  therefore  the 
writings  of  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  and  of  other  opponents 
of  Nestorius,  bring  out  the  truth,  that  the  inward  part  in 
the  Holy  Eucharist  is  not  any  fresh  Body  of  Christ,  but  the 
very  same  Body  which  He  took  of  the  Virgin,  and  which  He 
offered  on  the  Cross.  To  quote  the  words  of  St.  Leo,  the 
final  defender  of  the  truth  of  Our  Lord's  Person  against  both 
its  assailants ;  "  although  He  be  placed  on  the  Father's  right 
hand,  yet  in  the  same  Flesh  which  He  took  of  the  Virgin,  does 
He  carry  out  the  sacrament  of  our  propitiation."  ^ 

These  different  schools,  then,   qualify  the  language   of  one 

^  "7€70f6i/  iSt'a  ToC  A070V." — Hard.  i.  1294.     And  vide  the  defence  of 
this  Anathema  against  the  Orientals,  8.  Cyril,  vi.  193. 
-  Epistola  Ix.  2.     Ad  Anatolium. 


204  TESTIMONY  OF  ANTIQUITY 

another:  the  Eastern  attests  the  fact  tliat  the  elements  are 
changed  by  consecration,  while  the  opponents  of  Eutyches  wit- 
ness that  the  existence  of  an  outward  jiart  must  not  be  forgotten, 
and  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria  that  the  inward  part  is  the  very 
Body  of  tlie  Incarnate  Son.  These  several  ideas,  taken  con- 
jointly, explain  what  was  meant  by  the  simpler  statements  of 
the  ante-Nicene  age,  that  the  thing  present  in  the  Holy 
Eucharist  is  the  Body  of  Christ.  Meantime,  however,  there 
had  arisen  a  school  in  the  Western  Church,  which  had  treated 
this  sul)ject  in  a  more  accurate  and  scientific  manner,  so  that 
the  trutli  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  could  be  brought  out,  not 
only  by  opposite  negations,  but  in  a  direct  and  positive  manner. 
Its  leadhig  writers  were  St.  Ambrose  and  St.  Augustin ;  and 
as  the  teaching  of  the  Eastern  School  has  been  paralleled  with 
the  statements  of  Justin  Martyr,  so  the  Western  may  be  con- 
sidered perhaps  to  be  built  upon  the  words  of  Irenoeus,  that 
the  Holy  Eucharist  consists  of  two  parts,  the  one  earthly,  and 
the  other  heavenly  [supra,  p.  193).  For  the  cardinal  principle 
of  this  school  was  that  the  existence  both  of  an  outward  and  of 
an  inward  part  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  was  to  be  admitted. 

By  the  reality  of  the  outward  part  is  meant  not  only  that 
it  is  an  object  to  the  sight  and  the  touch,  but  that  it  retains 
that  power  of  nourishment,  which  is  our  other  sign  of  its 
sensible  existence.  This  had  been  maintained  by  Origen,  by 
whom  St.  Ambrose  was  often  influenced,  though  the  extrava- 
gances of  the  great  Alexandrian  teacher  have  prevented  him 
from  being  quoted  as  an  authority  in  the  Church.  In  par- 
ticular, Origen's  addiction  to  the  Platonic  philosophy  would 
naturally  lead  him  to  undervalue  any  facts  opposed  to  its 
spiritualizing  tendency ;  so  that  he  is  a  jwculiarly  unsafe  wit- 
ness respecting  the  Holy  Eucharist.  This  circumstance  destroys 
his  authority,  when  he  seems,  though  but  uncertainly,  to  indi- 
cate, in  opposition  to  the  common  judgment  of  antiquity,  that 
none  but  devout  receivers  partake  of  the  Real  Body  of  Christ. 
But  when  referring  to  the  outward  jiart  or  visible  elements, 
he  makes  statements  which  accord  with  the  system  of  the  great 


TO  THE  EEAL  PRESENCE.  205 

teachers  of  the  Western  Church.  "  That  food  which  is  conse- 
crated by  the  AVord  of  Grod  and  by  prayer,  so  far  as  its  mate- 
rial part  is  concerned,  goes  into  the  belly,  and  is  cast  out  into 
the  draught ;  but  as  regards  the  prayer  which  is  added  to  it, 
it  becomes  useful,  according  to  the  analogy  of  faith,  and  be- 
comes the  cause  of  discernment  to  the  mind  which  looks  to 
that  which  is  edifying.  And  it  is  not  the  matter  of  the  bread, 
but  the  word  which  is  spoken  over  it,  which  benefits  him  who 
eats  it,  not  unworthily  of  the  Lord."  ^ 

Here,  then,  we  have  a  recognition  of  the  existence  of  the 
outward,  as  well  as  of  the  inward  part  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  — 
the  first  being  not  only  an  object  to  the  senses,  but  being  the 
means  of  nutrition  to  the  body,  while  the  inward  part,  of 
which  it  is  a  type  or  figure,  is  the  nourishment  of  the  soul. 
This  is  the  theory  which  we  see  more  scientifically  represented 
in  St.  Ambrose  and  St.  Augustin.  St.  Ambrose  opposes  the 
"ordo  naturge"  to  the  "excellentia  gratise" — that  "quod  natura 
formavit"  to  that  "quod  benedictio  consecravit,"  and  implies 
the  presence  of  both  in  that  which  he  calls  "  carnis  illius  sacra- 
uientum."^  But  it  is  in  the  wi-itings  of  St.  Augustin  that 
these  expressions  assume  a  mox'e  definite  shape.  The  outward 
part  is  called  sacra7rientum,  the  inward  res  or  virtus  sacramenti. 
St.  Augustin  dwells  upon  the  distinction  with  great  variety 
of  expression.     It  is  "  one  thing  which  is  seen,   and  another 

'  Comment,  in  Matth.  Tom.  xi.  14,  vol.  iii.  p.  500.  In  the  sequel, 
(3rigen  speaks  of  Our  Lord's  Body  as  the  true  food  which  no  bad  man  is 
able  to  eat.  His  authority  is  not  of  great  weight,  yet  he  may  have  de- 
signed to  say  nothing  but  that  the  wicked  cannot  feed  spiritually  upon 
Christ,  i.e.  cannot  enter  into  a  spiritual  relation  to  Him.  This  is  nothing 
more  than  is  taught  in  St.  John  vi.,  to  which  he  refers,  and  is  not  the 
same  thing  as  to  deny  that  Christ's  Body  and  Blood  are  really  received 
by  all  who  receive  the  outward  part  in  the  Holy  Eucharist.  This  last 
he  could  not  mean  to  deny,  if  he  is  to  be  supposed  consistent  with  himself, 
since  in  his  work  against  Celsus  he  says,  "  We  eat  the  bread,  which  is 
made  a  certain  sacred  Body  by  prayer,  and  which  sanctifies  those  who 
with  good  intent  use  it." — Cont.  Celsuni.  viii.  33,  vol.  i.  p.  766.  Here  he 
discriminates  the  benefit  of  the  sacrament,  which  is  reaped  by  the  devout 
alone,  from  its  reality,  which,  he  says,  is  dependent  on  the  prayer  of  con- 
secration. 

■^  De  My^teriis,  ix.  59.  50,  53.     Vide  also  De  Fide,  iv.  10.  124. 


206  TESTIMONY   OF  ANTIQUITY 

which  is  understood;"^  "the  sacrament  is  one  thing,  and  the 
virtue  of  the  sacrament  another;"^  for  there  is  "that  which 
is  taken  visibly  in  the  sacrament,  and  that  which  is  spiritually- 
eaten  and  drunk."^  Hence  there  is  such  a  thing  as  "carnally 
and  visibly  pressing  with  the  teeth  the  sacrament  of  the  Body 
and  Blood  of  Christ,"  and  there  is  such  a  thing  as  "spiritually 
eating  the  Flesh  of  Christ  and  drinking  His  Blood ;"  the 
^^  sacramentum"  that  is,  is  one  thing,  the  "Body  and  Blood"* 
another. 

Thus  did  St.  August  in  discriminate  the  signum,  and  the 
res  stgnificans,  vis  or  siynijicatio.^  Yet  as  the  authority  of 
Origen  is  destroyed  by  his  spiritualizing  tendency,  so  that  of 
this  great  teacher  of  the  Western  Church  is  somewhat  impaired 
by  the  exaggerated  statements,  into  which  he  was  led  during 
his  later  years  in  his  opposition  to  the  Pelagians.  His  asser- 
tions respecting  the  divine  decrees  betrayed  him  into  expres- 
sions, which  have  been  affinned  to  militate  against  the  very 
truths  which  his  own  phraseology  had  contributed  to  establish. 
When  he  says,  indeed,  that  Judas  eat  "the  bread  of  the  Lord," 
while  the  other  discijiles  "eat  the  Lord  who  was  bread,"*  he 
was  only  expressing  the  truth,  that  a  personal  relation  to  Our 
Lord,  who  gives  His  Body  for  our  food  in  this  sacrament,  is 
not  dependent  on  the  mere  partaking  of  that  food,  but  is  re- 
served for  its  devout  participants.  And  the  same  may  have 
been  his  purpose,  when  he  says  that  the  sacramentum  is  given 
"  to  some  to  life,  to  others  to  destruction, "  but  that  "  the  thing 

'  Senno  272,  vol.  v.  1104. 

2  In  Joan.  xxvi.  11,  vol.  iii.  part  2,  p.  498. 

^  Sermo  131,  vol.  v.  p.  641. 

*  In  Joan.  xxvi.  18,  vol.  iii.  part  2,  p.  501.  Several  words  of  this  last 
passage  are  an  insertion,  and  are  to  be  traced  to  the  time  of  Bede,  when 
the  phraseology  which  8.  Augustin  had  introduced  had  been  more  ac- 
curately determined.  But  they  exactly  accord  with  his  system ;  the 
sacramentum,  or  outward  part,  is  all  which  the  senses  can  reach  to ;  the 
inward  part  is  bestowed  upon  all  by  means  of  sacramental  union,  but 
none,  except  the  devout,  enter  into  spiritual  relation  to  Christ,  or  feed  on 
Him  spiritually. 

^  De  Doctrina  Christ,  iii.  9,  vol.  iii.  1,  49. 

''  In  Joan.  lix.  1,  p.  663. 


TO  THE  EEAL   PEESENCE.  207 

itself,  of  which  it  is  the  sacr amentum,  is  given  to  every  man 
to  life,  who  is  a  partaker  of  it. " '  He  could  not  mean  to  deny 
that  the  inward  part  is  present  by  virtue  of  consecration, 
and  that  all  communicants  receive  it,  because  he  says  in  ex- 
press words  that  the  Body^  and  Blood  of  Christ  are  received 
even  by  those  who  do  not  profit  by  them.  On  one  occasion, 
indeed,  his  words  seem  to  imply  that  the  final  perseverance 
of  the  communicant  is  a  criterion  ^  whether  he  receives  any 
real  gift  in  the  Holy  Eucharist.  But  the  passage  is  open 
to  another  interpretation ;  and  we  are  justified  in  explaining 
St.  Augustin's  lax  and  general  assertions  by  his  more  syste- 
matic statements.  (Vide  supra,  p.  158.)  For  we  have  distinct 
affirmations  in  his  works*  that  a  real  gift  is  bestowed  both  in 
Baptism  and  the  Holy  Eucharist ;  and  that  this  gift  is  con- 
ferred both  on  those  who  receive,  and  on  those  who  reject  it. 
And  the  gift  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  he  afiirms  to  be  the  gift 
of  Christ's  Body ;  and  this  gift  he  states  to  be  the  result  of 
that  "mystical  consecration,"^  which  endows  the  outward  sign 
with  the  iuM  ard  reality. 

But  it  was  by  the  systematic  statements  which  gave  shape 
to  the  ancient  belief,  not  through  his  novel  assertions  respecting 
the  divine  decrees,  that  St.  Augustin  formed  the  mind  of  the 
Western  Church.  His  followers  at  once  adopted  and  matured 
his  views ;  the  virtus  was  more  perfectly  discriminated  from 
the  res  sacramenti :    the  first  was  understood  to  be  the  effect 

^  In  Joan.  xxvi.  15,  p.  500. 

2  Epis.  140,  sec.  66. 

^  "  Signum  quia  manducavit  et  bibit,  hoc  est,  si  manet  et  manetur,  si 
habitat  et  inhabitatur,  si  lixret  ut  nan  deseratur." — In  Joan,  xxvii.  1, 
p.  502.  But  this  passage  may  mean,  "if  he  cleaves  in  order  that  he  may 
not  be  deserted."  It  would  then  express  nothing,  but  that  the  henefit  of 
the  sacramental  gift  is  only  obtained  by  the  faithful.  This  is  S.  Augus- 
tin's own  explanation,  Sermo  71.  17,  vol.  v.  p.  392. 

^  Epis.  cxl.  66.  In  Joan,  xxvii.  11.  De  Baptismo  contra  Don,  v.  9, 
Sermo  Ixxi.  17. 

^  "  Noster  autem  panis  et  calix  ....  certa  consecratione  mysticus  fit 
nobis,  non  nascitur.  Proinde  quod  non  ita  fit,  quamvis  sit  panis  et  calix, 
alimentum  est  refectionis,  non  sacramentum  religionis." — Cont.  Faustum, 
XX.  13,  vol.  viii.  p.  342. 


208  TESTIMONY   OF  ANTIQUITY 

attending  the  Holy  Eucharist,  the  second  the  reality  to  which 
that  effect  was  to  be  attributed :  and  thus  it  was  upon  his 
system  that  the  chief  writers  of  the  West — Bede  among  the 
principal — based  their  phraseology.  So  that  his  teaching  appears 
in  the  pages  of  Lombard/  professedly  in  his  own  words,  but 
really,  it  would  seem,  in  the  words  of  his  aunotators.  And  thus 
arose  a  far  more  scientific  mode  of  speaking  than  that  which 
prevailed  in  the  East :  each  part  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  was 
more  distinctly  recognized ;  and  there  was  room  for  assigning 
its  due  place  to  the  outward  sign,  without  sacrificing  the  inward 
reality. 

The  brief  sketch  which  has  been  given,  shows  the  various 
modes  of  expression  which  were  employed  in  the  early  Church 
lespecting  the  Holy  Eucharist,  and  what  v ere  the  several 
circumstances  which  gave  their  impress  to  its  phraseology. 
And  it  is  obvious,  that  if  it  were  made  a  question,  in  what 
manner  Our  Lord's  Presence  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  was  sup- 
posed to  be  brought  about,  and  still  more  if  it  were  requisite 
to  explain  this  process,  in  terms  which  all  parties  in  the  ancient 
Church  would  have  been  prepared  to  accept,  the  inquiry  would 
involve  considerable  difficulty.  It  would  be  necessary  to  find 
some  mode  of  adjustment  between  the  tendency  of  the  Eastern 
School,  as  it  has  been  called,  on  one  side,  and  that  of  the 
opponents  of  Eutychiauism  on  the  other.  The  former  tendency 
went  so  far  in  some  instances  as  to  imply  that  the  outward 
part  retained  no  real  existence  at  all :  the  latter  led  to  lan- 
guage, which  might  be  represented  to  mean  that  it  was  wholly 
unaltered.  The  more  scientific  statements  of  the  school  of  St. 
Augustiu  did  not  harmonize  exactly  with  either.     And  conse- 

'  "  Ait  enim  Aug.  in  lib.  Sententiarum  Prosperi :  hoc  est  quod  dici- 
mus,  quod  modis  omnibus  approbare  contendimus,  sacrificium  Ecclesise 
duobus  confici,  duobus  constare  ;  visibili  elementorum  specie,  et  invisibili 
Domiiii  nostri  Jesu  Cliristi  came  et  sanguine;  sacramento  et  re  sacra- 
nienti,  id  est,  corpore  Cliristi."— Li?(.  bent.  \v.  x.  2.  The  words  are 
quoted  in  Grutiim,  De  Consecrat.  ii.  48,  as  though  S.  Augustiu's,  but 
they  appear  to  be  Lanfranc's  cont.  Bereng.  10. 


TO  THE  REAL  PRESENCE.  209 

quently,  the  theory  subsequently  maintained  by  Aquinas,  that 
the  substance  of  Our  Lord's  Body  and  Blood  supersedes  that 
of  the  bread  and  wine,  while,  so  far  as  the  senses  go,  the  latter 
remain  wholly  unaltered,  was  an  explanation  of  the  mode  in 
which  Our  Lord's  presence  is  brought  about,  which  did  not 
exactly  accord  with  the  statements  of  any  early  party.  It  gave 
greater  reality  to  the  elements  than  the  followers  of  St.  Cyril 
of  Jerusalem  appeared  to  approve,  because  it  maintained  them 
to  retain  the  power  of  corporal  nourishment :  ^  it  assigned  to 
them  less  reality  than  was  done  by  the  opponents  of  Eutyches, 
whose  language  seemed  to  imply  that  their  substance  remained 

'  It  has  been  disputed  whether  the  system  of  Aquinas  really  implies 
that  the  elements  retain  the  power  of  nourishment;  and  therefore  whether 
the  elements,  considered  as  objects  of  sense,  can  still  be  said  to  be  pre- 
sent. For  the  process  by  'which  the  digestive  organs  supply  the  body 
with  nourishment,  is  one  of  which  the  senses  can  take  note.  Now  Aris- 
totle, and  the  Schoolmen  after  him,  taught  that  food  nourishes  through 
the  transference  of  its  substance  to  the  party  nourished.  And  Aquinas 
supposes  the  substance  to  be  the  thing  changed.  But  then  Aquinas  and 
his  followers  maintained,  first,  that  Christ's  Body  does  not  nourish  our 
bodies  in  the  Holy  Eucharist.  [' '  Corpus  Christi  est  cibus  mentis,  non 
ventris  ;  animae  non  corporis." — Opiisc.  lix.  6,  and  vide  Summa,  iii.  77.  6. 
Catechis.  Trident.,  Pars.  ii.  De.  Euch.  Sac.  50.]  Secondly,  that  our  bodies 
are  nourished  by  the  sensible  elements.  [Vide  Stiarez  de  Sacram.  Disp. 
Ivii.  3.  Cat.  Trid.  ib.  39.]  And  for  this  Aquinas  accounted,  by  saying 
that  after  consecration  the  Bulk  [quantitas]  took  the  place  of  the  Sub- 
stance,  or  in  other  words,  that  when  the  substance  was  said  to  be  changed, 
the  term  substance  was  not  to  be  understood  in  so  wide  a  sense  as  that 
in  which  it  was  employed  by  Aristotle.  Vide  Opusc.  lix.  4  ;  Summa,  iii. 
77.  6.  The  Aristotelian  philosophy  afforded  no  doubt  a  convenient, 
medium  for  expressing  the  doctrine  of  the  Sacraments,  because,  accord- 
ing to  its  phraseology,  every  object  might  be  spoken  of  as  consisting  of  an 
external  signum,  and  an  inward  res  signi,  the  first  only  being  an  object 
to  the  senses,  the  second  to  the  mind.  The  analogy  which  this  system 
bore  to  the  truths  respecting  the  Sacraments,  which  had  been  taught  in 
the  early  Church,  naturally  led  the  Schoolmen  to  employ  it  in  their  ex- 
planation. They  were  not  bound,  however,  to  adhere  rigidly  to  the 
Peripatetic  system ;  and  the  qualifications  introduced  by  Aquinas  show 
him  to  have  maintained  the  same  doctrine  which  had  been  taught  by  the 
Roman  Council  under  Gregory  VII.  long  before  the  Scholastic  age.  It  is 
thus  stated  by  De  Marca :  "  The  substance  was  supposed  to  exist  as  some- 
thing separate  from  the  bulk  of  the  bread,  so  that  this  bulk  might  exist 
naturally  by  itself,  without  any  new  miracle,  whatever  Aristotle  may 
say." — Traite  de  V Eacliavistie.     Works,  vol.  v,  p.  125, 


210  TESTIMONY  OF  ANTIQUITY 

wholly  unaltered.  There  can  be  no  necessity  therefore  for 
admitting  this  expression  of  the  manner  in  which  Our  Lord's 
Presence  is  brought  about,  unless  it  is  commended  to  us  by 
some  later  authority,  to  which  we  are  bound  to  submit.  And 
therefore,  while  it  is  accepted  by  those  who  admit  the  authority 
of  the  Council  of  Trent^  it  is  not  accepted  by  English  Church- 
men, by  whom  that  Council  is  not  recognized.  They  withhold 
their  assent  from  this  account  of  the  manner  in  which  Our 
Lord's  Presence  is  brought  about  in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  and 
allow  nothing  but  that  in  which  all  parties  in  the  ancient 
Church  were  accordant.  They  hold,  of  course,  as  our  Article 
declares,  and  as  Aquinas  would  not  have  denied,  that  according 
to  that  popular  sense  of  the  word  substance,  which  implies  it 
to  be  an  object  of  the  senses  of  men,  the  substance  of  the  ele- 
ments remains  unchanged.  But  in  reference  to  that  more 
Bubtile  explanation,  which  was  designed  by  Aquinas,  they  simply 
withhold  their  judgment,  and  affirm  nothing  respecting  the 
Holy  Eucharist  but  that  which  was  affirmed  by  the  whole 
Church,  both  in  the  East  and  West,  during  the  first  seven 
centuries  of  its  existence. 

For  the  accordance  of  antiquity  respecting  the  Real  Presence 
is  rendered  more  striking  by  its  dissonance  respecting  the  man- 
ner in  which  the  Presence  is  brought  about,  and  the  terms 
in  which  it  is  to  be  stated.  This  doctrine  is  shown  not  to  have 
been  the  result  of  a  theory  which  everywhere  suggested  the 
game  conclusions,  but  to  have  been  a  practical  conviction,  rooted 
in  the  deep  and  wide-spread  belief  of  a  whole  community.  In 
the  East  and  "West,  whether  men  were  opposing  Nestorius  or 
Eutyches,  however  they  might  express  themselves  respecting 
the  outward  elements  which  were  the  medium  of  conveying 
an  inward  blessing,  there  prevailed  the  same  full  conviction, 
that  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  were  really  communicated, 
under  the  forms  of  broad  and  wine  in  the  Holy  Eucharist. 
There  might  be  a  difference,  therefore,  as  to  the  phrases 
employed,  but  there  was  none  as  to  the  foct  which  they  were 
designed  to   attest.     And   how  should  there  be  such  concert 


TO   THE   REAL  PRESENCE.  211 

respecting  the  thing  conveyed,  while  about  the  scientific  state- 
ment of  the  mode  of  conveying  it  there  was  such  diversity, 
except  because  this  was  a  constituent  part  of  the  Church's 
original  deposit  ?  What  can  be  meant  by  her  authority  as  the 
appointed  witness  to  Our  Lord's  declarations,  if  the  consentient 
affirmation  of  undivided  Christendom  was  fundamentally  erroneous? 

We  may  now  turn,  by  way  of  confirmation,  to  the  two  criteria 
which  it  was  proposed  to  apply  to  this  subject,  and  inquire 
what  was  the  opinion  of  the  various  schools  which  have  been 
described,  respecting  the  reverence  due  to  the  consecrated  ele- 
ments, and  respecting  the  invariable  connexion  between  the 
outward  form  and  the  inward  gift.  These  were  stated  to  be 
indications  that  the  systems  of  Zuinglius  and  of  Calvin  were 
held  to  be  insufficient,  and  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Real  Pre- 
sence was  accepted.  If  we  find,  then,  the  same  oj)inions  and 
usages  to  have  prevailed  among  parties  who  were  divergent  in 
their  objects  and  modes  of  thought,  it  will  be  a  further  proof 
that  their  belief  was  fundamentally  identical. 

First — The  plainest  proof  which  men  can  give  that  they  sup- 
pose Christ  to  be  really  pi'esent  in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  is  to 
render  Him  Divine  honour.  So  much  seems  to  be  allowed 
both  by  those  who  admit  the  Real  Presence  and  by  those  who 
reject  it.  Luther,  as  being  of  the  former  number,  retained  the 
elevation  of  the  Host  when  he  drew  up  a  service  for  Witten- 
berg.^    Calvin^  rests  his  assertion  that  Our  Lord  ought  not  to 

^  "  Elevatur  panis  et  calix,  ritu  hactenus  servato." — Form.  Commun. 
pro  Eccles.  Witfen.  Luther,  vol.  ii.  fol.  38i.  Cotta,  in  his  notes  on  Ger- 
hard (vol.  X.  p.  469),  says  that  Luther  "retinuit  elevatioiiis  ritum  tan- 
quam  liberum  et  indifE'erentem,  propter  infirmos,  non  adorationis  ergo ; 
abrogavit  autem  postea  eundem,  reddiditque  abolitionis  rationem."  But 
Luther's  own  words  to  the  Waldenses,  A.D.  1523,  go  much  further.  "  Qui 
non  credit  Christum  suo  corpore  et  sanguine  in  sacramento  prapsentem 
esse,  ille  recte  facit,  quod  neque  spiritual  iter,  neque  carnaliter  adorat. 
Qui  vero  hoc  credit,  ut  credi  debere  satis  superque  demonstratum  est,  ille 
profecto  carni  et  sanguini  Christi  venerationem  denegare  sine  peccato 
nullo  modo  potest." — Hospinian,  vol.  ii.  19.  And  it  would  seem  that 
the  custom  of  Elevation  was  in  reality  done  away  at  the  instance  of  the 
Landgrave,  A.D.  1544,  to  satisfy  the  Swiss. — Hospinian,  ii.  328. 

-  Sic  enim  semper  ratiocinati  sumus,  si  Christus  est  in  pane,  esse  sub 
pane  adorandum." — Calvin  adv.  Heshus.    Works,  viii.  727. 

P  2 


212  TESTIMONY   OF  ANTIQUITY 

be  worshipped  in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  on  the  ground  of  His 
absence;  and  afl&rms  distinctly,  that  if  Our  Lord  were  really 
present  there,  He  ought  to  be  adored.  Bishop  Andrewes ' 
employs  the  same  argument :  but  since  he  admits  the  Real 
Presence  he  draws  a  contrary  conclusion.  "  Christus  ipse 
Sacrameuti  res,  in  et  cum  sacramento ;  extra  et  sine  sacramento, 
ubiubi  est,  adorandus  est."  On  this  principle  it  was  that  the 
posture  of  kneeling  for  the  reception  of  the  elements  was  so 
warmly  objected  to  by  the  Zuinglo-Calvinistic  party.  And 
its  retention  by  the  Church  of  England,  in  opposition  to  the 
repeated  demands  of  the  Puritans  at  home,  as  well  as  to  the 
example  of  foreign  Protestants,  is  a  fact  of  great  moment,  by 
which  she  is  allied  to  the  ancient  faith.  This  fact  is  not  neu- 
ti-alized  by  the  somewhat  ambiguous  rubric  which  was  affixed 
to  the  Communion  Office  in  1662.  For  if  this  rubric  be  com- 
pared with  that  of  King  Edward's  Second  Book,  from  which  it 
was  borrowed,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  compilers  in  1662  omit- 
ted the  distinctive  words  of  Calvin's  system.  He  denied  that 
Our  Lord's  Body  possesses  any  other  than  a  natural  mode  of 
presence,  and  his  common  mode  of  arguing  against  those  who 
believed  the  Real  Presence,  was  to  attribute  to  them  all  the 
inconveniences  which  would  result  from  the  supposition  that 
Christ's  natural  Presence  was  vouchsafed  in  the  consecrated 
elements.  This  opinion  of  his  was  shared  by  the  advisers  of 
King  Edward  VI.,  who,  without  any  sanction  from  the  Church 
of  England,  imposed  upon  her  the  Prayer-Book  of  1552,  and 
the  Articles  which  were  published  in  the  same  year.  They 
affirmed  in  one  of  their  articles  that,  "  forasmuch  as  the  truth 
of  man's  nature  requireth  that  the  body  of  one  and  •  the  self- 
same man  cannot  be  at  one  time  in  divers  places,  but  must 
needs  be  in  some  one  certain  place,  therefore  the  Body  of  Christ 
cannot  be  present  at  one  time  in  many  and  divers  places :    and 

'  Andrewes^  Resp.  ad.  BcUarminum,  viii.  p.  266  (Anglo-Cath.  Lib.). 
So  Gerh<ard,  De  Sacra  Conna,  c.ip.  xix.  208.  "Quia  negat  carnem  Christi 
adoranilaiu  ?  Adoramue  earn  in  sacramento,  sed  externa  sacramenti  sym- 
bola  uou  aduramus." 


TO   THE  REAL  PRESENCE.  213 

because,  as  Holy  Scripture  doth  teach,  Christ  was  taken  up 
into  heaven,  ....  a  faithful  man  ought  not  to  believe  ....  the 
real  and  bodily  presence  of  Christ's  Flesh  and  Blood  in  the 
Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper."  And  at  the  same  time  they 
declared  in  the  Rubric,  which  they  affixed  to  their  Communion 
Office,  "  that  it  is  not  meant  that  any  adoration  is  done,  or 
ought  to  be  done,  either  unto  the  sacramental  bread  and  wine 
there  bodily  received,  or  unto  any  real  and  essential  presence, 
there  being,  of  Christ's  natural  Flesh  and  Blood."  This  was 
to  assert  that  Christ's  Body  possesses  no  other  than  that  natural 
mode  of  presence,  which  it  is  allowed  that  He  exercises  only  in 
heaven,  and  to  affirm  that  He  ought  not  to  be  worshipped  in 
the  Holy  Eucharist,  because  He  is  really  absent. 

Now,  the  characteristic  words  of  the  Calvinistic  system  were 
omitted,  both  from  the  28th  Article,  as  accepted  by  the  Convo- 
cation of  Canterbury  in  1562,  and  from  the  B,ubric  which  was 
inserted  after  the  Restoration.  This  Rubric  only  affirms  that 
Christ's  natural  Body  and  Blood  are  in  heaven  and  not  here, 
and  that  no  adoration  is  intended  "either  unto  the  sacramental 
bread  and  wine  there  bodily  received,  or  unto  any  corporal  pre- 
sence of  Christ's  natural  Flesh  and  Blood."  The  Rubric  certainly 
does  not  go  on  to  state,  as  it  might  have  done,  that  though 
Christ's  Body  and  Blood  are  not  naturally  present,  except  in 
heaven,  yet  that  their  supernatural  Presence  is  bestowed  in 
the  Holy  Eucharist ;  and  that  though  no  adoration  be  due  to 
the  bread  and  wine,  or  to  any  such  corporal  Presence  as  the 
senses  can  take  cognizance  of,  yet  that  Christ's  Body  and  Blood, 
really  present  under  the  forms  of  bread  and  wine,  as  the  inward 
part  or  res  sacramenti,  are  entitled  to,  and  receive  adoration. 
Yet  since  the  words  which  denied  these  truths  have  been 
omitted,  while  the  practice  of  kneeling  for  the  reception  of  the 
elements  continues  to  be  enfoi'ced,  there  is  nothing  in  this 
Rubric  which  excludes  the  ancient  belief,  that  Christ  is  present 
in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  by  reason  of  the  presence  of  His  Body 
and  Blood ;  and  that  the  presence  of  His  Body  and  Blood  is 
witnessed  by  the  adoration  to  which  they  are  entitled. 


214  TESTIMONY   OF   ANTIQUITY 

That  such  was  the  opinion  of  the  ancient  Church  is  testified 
by  its  writers  of  all  schools  and  sentiments.  That  it  should  be 
found  in  those  who,  like  St.  Cyril  and  his  followers,  fixed  their 
attention  almost  exclusively  upon  the  inward  reality,  can  sur- 
prise no  one.  Anastasius  Sinaita,  in  whom  this  tendency 
reached  its  height,  speaks  of  a  direct  act  of  elevation,  as 
practised  in  his  day.  "  Post  sacrificii  illius  incruenti  conse- 
crationem,  Pauem  vitae  in  altum  elevat,  ipsumque  omnibus 
ostendit." '  But  St.  Cyril  directs  men  "  to  approach  to  the 
Cup  of  His  Blood ;  not  stretching  forth  their  hands,  but 
bending  and  saying  in  the  way  of  worshiji  and  reverence, 
Amen."  ^  St.  Chrysostom  also,  who  in  many  places  accords 
with  the  language  of  St.  Cyril,  speaks  of  Christ's  Presence 
in  the  Holy  Eucharist  as  a  "  fearful  and  wondrous  sight." 
"  For  if  we  come  with  faith,  we  shall  assuredly  see  Him 
lying  in  the  manger.  For  this  table  stands  in  the  place  of 
the  manger.  And  there  will  lie  the  Body  of  the  Lord ; 
not  wrapped  as  then  in  swaddling  clothes,  but  on  every  side 
clothed  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  initiated  understand  what 
I  say." '  And  he  states  in  various  ways,  that  Our  Lord,  as 
present  in  the  elements,  is  entitled  to  the  same  reverence 
which  was  paid  Him  when  He  was  visibly  manifest  in  the 
flesh.  He  speaks  of  the  Energumeni  *  as  introduced  into 
Church  to  pay  bodily  reverence  to  Christ,  by  "  bowing  the 
head"  when  His  Pz-esence  is  bestowed  in  the  Holy* Eucharist, 
because  they  may  not  join  in  the  Church's  woi'ds  of  prayer. 
And  again  he  describes  them  as  brought  in  like  prisoners, 
and  placed  as  criminals  would  be  at  the  time  the  judge  was 
going  to  take  his  place,  "  when  Christ  is  about,  as  it  were, 
to  seat  Himself  on  a  lofty  tribunal,  and  to  appear  in  the 
mysteries   themselves." ''     He   speaks  of  angels  as  "  trembling 

'  De  Sacra  Synaxi.     Bib.  Pat.  Max.  ix.  945. 

2  Fifth  Myst.  Cat.  22. 

'  Horn,  de  B.  Philogon.  iii.  vol.  i.  p.  498. 

*  Horn,  de  Incomprehens.  Dei  Nat.  iii.  7,  vol.  i.  p.  470. 

*  Horn,  de  Incomprehena.  Dei  Nat.  iv.  4.  Bingham  objects  that  the 
reverence  thus  paid  would  be  to  the  elements  before  they  were  conse- 


TO   THE   REAL   PRESENCE.  215 

at  the  Church's  sacrifice,"  and  as  "  ministering  at  that  table."  * 
And  he  describes  them  as  seen  in  a  vision  standing  round 
the  altar,  with  eyes  fixed  on  the  ground,  like  soldiers  before 
their  king.  ^ 

But  it  is  not  only  in  St.  Chrysostom  and  St.  Cyril,  but 
among  the  opponents  of  the  Eutychians,  who  in  expression 
were  most  removed  from  that  which  has  been  called  the 
Eastern  School,  that  we  find  direct  statements  that  Our 
Lord's  Body  as  present  in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  is  a  fit  object 
of  worship.  "  The  mystical  symbols,"  says  Theodoret,  "  are 
thought  of  as  that  which  they  have  become,  and  are  believed 
to  be  so,  and  are  worshipped,  as  being  those  things  which 
they  are  believed  to  be."  ^  Theodoret  speaks  as  though  the 
elements  themselves  might  partake  of  that  worship  which  is 
due  to  the  "res  sacramenti"  which  they  contain.  But  this 
cannot  have  been  his  intention.  He  speaks  of  the  sacrament 
at  large  as  an  object  of  worship,  because  Our  Lord  is  con- 
tained in  it,  just  as  St.  Matthew  tells  us  that  St.  John  saw 
the  Holy  Ghost  descending,  when  he  saw  the  dove  which  ac- 
companied the  Divine  approach.  This  is  explained  by  St. 
Augustin,  who  tells  us  that  "  the  symbols  of  divine  things  are 
visible,  but  it  is  the  invisible  things  themselves  which  are 
honoured  in  them."  *  And  the  same  thing  is  obvious  from 
the  Liturgy  of  St.  Chrysostom,  where,  after  the  consecrated 
elements  have  been  the  object  of  various  acts  of  reverence,  the 

crated.  For  the  Energumeni  were  ordered  by  the  Apo8.  Cons.  viii.  7, 
to  go  out  before  Consecration.  But  there  are  two  passages  in  S.  Chrysos- 
tom. When  he  speaks  (p.  477)  of  the  Energumeni  as  taking  their  place 
like  criminals  when  the  judge  is  about  to  mount  the  tribunal,  because 
Christ  is  about  to  appear  in  the  mysteries,  he  expresses  the  reverence 
which  is  due  even  to  the  anticipated  mystery :  but  at  p.  470,  he  speaks 
of  their  postures  of  reverence  at  the  moment  of  the  sacrifice  itself.  And 
the  entire  exclusion  of  the  Energumeni  was  not  the  universal  rule,  as  is 
shown  by  Concil.  Araus.  i.  Canon  14,  Concil.  Arelat.  ii.  Canon  39,  Cassian 
Collat.  vii.  30.  S.  Chrysostom's  words  are  founded  obviously  on  this  last 
custom.  The  Apost.  Constit.  also  introduce  a  second  prayer  for  the  Ener- 
gumeni after  the  Oblation,  viii.  12. 

'  Hom.  iii.  in  Ep.  ad  Ephes.  iv.  4,  5.  ^  De  Sacerdotio,  vi.  4. 

^  Dialogus  Secund.  *  De  Catechis.  Rud.  sec.  50. 


216  TESTIMONY   OF  ANTIQUITY 

Priest  says,  "  look  clown,  0  Lord,  from  heaven  upon  those  who 
have  bowed  tlieir  heads  unto  Thee,  for  they  have  not  bowed 
them  to  flesh  and  blood,  but  to  Thee  the  fearful  God."  ^  It 
is  the  "  res  sacramenti  "  alone,  that  is,  which  is  a  proper  object 
of  worship,  and  even  this  not  by  reason  of  Christ's  Manhood, 
but  by  reason  of  thaf  Godhead  with  which  it  is  personally 
united.  "  I  fear  to  touch  charcoal,"  says  Damascene,  "  on 
account  of  the  fire,  which  is  joined  to  the  wood.  In  like 
manner  I  adore  both  natures  in  Christ,  on  account  of  the  God- 
head which  is  joined  to  the  Flesh."  "^ 

This  is  more  exactly  explained  if  we  look  to  another  school 
of  writers — those  who  opposed  Nestorius.  For,  as  Leontius 
expresses  it,  when  writing  against  the  Nestorians,  who  denied 
that  God  the  Word  and  the  Man  Christ  Jesus  were  personally 
united ;  "  if  men  hold  this  opinion,  whose  Body  and  Blood  do 
they  suppose  that  they  partake  in  the  Communion  ?  Is  it  His 
who  has  conferred  a  gift"  {i.e.  God  the  Word),  "or  His  who 
has  received  one"  (i.e.  the  Man  Christ)?  "If  they  say  that 
they  partake  the  Body  of  God  the  Word  who  confers  the  gift, 
how  can  they  make  this  good,  since  they  do  not  confess  Him  to 
be  incarnate  ?  But  if  they  say  they  partake  Him,  who  receives 
the  gift,  their  hope  is  vain  ;  since  they  profess  themselves  to  be 
man-worshippers.  For  cursed  are  they  who  put  their  trust  in 
man,  who  worship  and  serve  the  creature  more  than  the 
Creator." '  Here  it  is  obvious  that  the  worship  which  was 
due  to  Christ's  Body,  and  which  especially  connected  itself 
with  His  Presence  in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  was  due  to  Him 
indeed  as  Man,  but  not  by  reason  of  His  Manhood. 

We  have  seen  that  expressions  indicative  that  Christ  was 
present  as  an  object  of  worship  in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  were 
used  by  writers  of  the  School  of  St.  Cyril  in  the  East,  as 
well  as  by  the  opponents  of  Nestorius  and  of  Eutyches.     They 

'  Goar,  p.  81. 

*  K.  J  oh.  Damasc.  de  Fide  Orthod.  iii.  8,  p.  216.  Vide  also  Rusticue 
cont.  Acephalos.     Bib.  Pat.  x.  p.  373. 

^  Leontius  cont.  Nestor,  et  Eutych.  iii.     Bib.  Tat.  ix.  704. 


TO  THE   REAL  PRESENCE.  217 

occur  with  no  less  distinctness  in  the  two  leaders  of  the 
Western  School,  St.  Ambrose  and  St.  Augustin.  Both  refer 
to  the  same  passage,  "  earth  is  My  footstool ; "  which  they  in- 
terpret of  the  Humanity  of  Our  Lord.  "  By  the  footstool," 
says  St.  Ambrose,  "  is  understood  earth,  but  by  earth  the  Flesh 
of  Christ,  which  even  at  this  day  we  adore  in  the  mysteries, 
and  which  the  Apostles  adored  in  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ : 
for  Christ  is  not  divided,  but  one ;  nor  when  He  is  adored  as 
the  Son  of  God,  is  He  denied  as  born  of  the  Virgin."  ^  In 
like  manner,  St.  Augustin :  Christ  "  walked  on  earth  in  His 
Flesh,  and  gave  His  Flesh  itself  to  us  to  be  eaten  for  our 
salvation ;  but  no  one  eats  that  Flesh  who  has  not  first  wor- 
shipped." ^  And  he  says  that  the  wicked  come  to  Christ's 
Table  and  worship,^  though  they  are  not  profited  by  the  gift 
of  His  Body.  It  only  remains  to  observe  further,  that  the 
same  view  of  things  is  sanctioned  also  by  the  language  of  the 
ante-Nicene  age.  The  Apostolical  Constitutions,  which  appa- 
rently express  the  usages  of  the  period  when  the  Church  was 
not  yet  established,  order  the  Deacons  to  "  minister  to  the  Body 
of  the  Lord  with  fear ; "  and  the  people  to  "  receive  the  Body 
of  the  Lord,  and  His  precious  Blood,  in  an  orderly  manner, 
with  fear  and  reverence,  as  if  they. approached  the  Body  of  the 
King."  *  And  Origen,  who  expresses  what  he  calls  "  the  common 
apprehension  of  simple  people,"  ^  as  well  as  his  own  spiritualizing 
conception,  reminds  his  readers  how  persons  were  accustomed  to 
take  part  in  "  the  divine  mysteries."  "  You  know,  when  you 
receive  the  Lord's  Body,  that  you  preserve  it  with  all  caution 
and  reverence,  lest  the  least  portion  of  it  should  fall ;  lest  any 
•  of  the  consecrated  gift  should  be  lost.  For  you  think  yourself 
guilty,    and    think    so    rightly,    if    any    of   it    falls    through 


'  De  Spiritu  Sancto,  iii.  11.  79. 

^  "Nemo  autem  illam  camem  manducat,  nisi  prius  adoraverit."  "  Non 
solum  non  peccemus  adorando,  sed  peccemus  non  adorando." — In  Psalm. 
xcviii.  sec.  9. 

3  Epist.  cxl.  sec.  66.  ■•  Lib.  ii.  57. 

^  In  Joan.  Tom.  xxxii.  16,  vol.  iv.  p.  444. 


218  TESTIMONY    OF  ANTIQUITY 

your   negligence."  ^      And    Tertullian  '^   witnesses   to   the   same 
feeling. 

Secondly — Thus  early  did  those  habits  prevail  to  which  later 
writers  gave  more  exact  expression,  by  which  the  presence  of 
Our  Lord's  Body  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  was  clearly  recognized. 
For  the  reverence  which  was  shown  to  the  inward  part,  or  res 
sacramenii,  in  this  ordinance,  is  not  referrible  to  any  express 
command :  ^  it  was  the  instinctive  expression  of  those  feelings, 
which  the  Christian  mind  naturally  entertained  upon  the  reve- 
lation of  its  Lord's  Presence.  It  witnesses,  therefore,  to  the 
nature  of  that  union  which  was  understood  to  take  place 
between  the  outward  part  and  the  inward  part  in  the  Holy 
Eucharist.  No  less  significant  is  the  fact,  that  the  Body  and 
Blood  of  Christ  were  believed  to  be  orally  received  even  by 
unworthy  communicants.  This  likewise  will  be  found  to  have 
been  the  opinion  of  all  those  ancient  schools,  which  have  been 
described.  It  was  the  opinion  of  St.  Cyprian,  who  speaks  to 
the  lapsed  of  the  evil  which  they  incurred  by  receiving  the 
Lord's  Body  unworthily.  It  is  "  the  Lord's  Body,"  he  says? 
"  which  they  attack : "  "  they  do  violence  to  the  Body  and 
Blood  of  the  Lord."  *  And  his  cox'respondent,  Firmilian,  speaks 
of  the  greatness  of  the  crime  committed,  when  men  who  are 
rashly  admitted  to  communion  are  allowed,  in  spite  of  the 
Apostle's  warning,  to  "  touch  the  Body  and  Blood  of  the 
Lord."  ^  To  such  persons  Origen  says,  "  you  do  not  fear  to 
approach  to  the  Eucharist,  and  to  partake  of  the  Body  of  Christ, 
as  if  you  were  pure  and  clean." "     "  Tyi-ants,"  says  St.  Atha- 

'  In  Exodurn.  Horn.  xiii.  3,  vol.  ii.  p.  176.  -  De  Corona,  3. 

•''  The  practice  of  reservation,  and  the  worship  due  to  Christ,  as  present 
"  under  the  form  of  bread  and  wine,"  were  not  part  of  Our  Lord's  original 
appointment  (as  the  '28th  article  observes),  but  were  deductions  from  the 
truths  revealed  respecting  this  sacrament,  into  which  the  Church  was 
guided  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

*  l)e  Lapsix,  p.  173.  And  again,  "Quod  non  statim  Domini  corpus  in- 
(juinatis  mauibus  accipiat,  aut  ore  polluto  Domini  sanguinem  bibat,  sacer- 
dotibus  sacrilegus  iraseitur." — Ibidem,  p.  175.  S.  Pacian  speaks  of  such 
a  person  as  "l3ominici  Corporis  violator." — Parcen.  ad  Pcenit.  Bib.  Pat. 
iv.  316. 

^  S.  Cypr.  Ep.  Ixxv.  21.  ^  In  Psalmos.  Horn.  ii.  6,  vol.  ii.  p.  688. 


TO   THE   EEAL  PRESENCE.  219 

nasius,  "  seek  after  the  royal  purple :  but  its  guardians,  sus- 
pecting danger,  do  not  grant  it.  Do  you  see,  0  Deacon,  that 
you  do  not  give  the  purple  of  the  spotless  Body  to  the  un- 
worthy." ^  So  St.  Chrysostom  :  "  how  shalt  thou  present  thyself 
before  the  Judgment-seat  of  Christ,  thou  who  presumest  upon 
His  Body  with  polluted  hands  and  lips."  ^  And  again,  "  I  will 
rather  lose  my  life  than  give  Our  Lord's  Blood  to  the  unwor- 
thy." ^  So  does  Victor  of  Antioch  speak  of  it  as  a  punishment 
for  the  impiety  of  Judas,  that  Satan  was  not  repelled  by  "  the 
Body  of  Christ,  which  he  had  received,"*  Theodoret  tells  us 
that  "  Christ  did  not  give  His  Body  and  Blood  to  His  eleven 
Apostles  only,  but  to  him  also  who  had  betrayed  Him."  ^  And 
St.  Cyi'il  of  Alexandria  says  that  "  Christ  comes  and  appears  to 
all  of  us,  both  invisibly  and  visibly ;  invisibly  indeed  as  God, 
but  visibly  by  His  Body,  For  He  permits  and  allows  us  to 
touch  His  sacred  Flesh.  For  by  the  favour  of  God  we  approach 
to  the  participation  of  the  mystic  Eucharist,  receiving  Christ  in 
our  hands."  ^ 

Here,  then,  are  authorities  in  proof  of  our  position,  from  four 
out  of  the  five  schools,  the  existence  of  which  has  been  traced. 
And  not  less  decisive  are  the  assertions  of  St.  Augustin,  some  of 
whose  words  have  been  already  cited  in  the  present  chapter. 
Thus  when  he  observes  that  some  who  receive  Christ's  Body  and 
Blood  do  not  abide  in  Him,  he  expresses  himself  as  follows : 
"  Those  many  persons  who  either  eat  that  Flesh  or  drink  that 
Blood  with  a  false  heart,  or  when  they  have  eaten  and  drunk 
become  apostates — do  they  abide  in  Christ  or  Christ  in  them  ?  " '' 
And  again  :  "  The  Body  of  the  Lord  and  the  Blood  of  the  Lord 
were  not  the  less  received  even  by  those  to  whom  the  Apostle 
said.  He  that  eateth  unworthily,  eateth  and  drinketh  damnation 

^  Montfaucon's  Coll.  Nov.  vol.  ii.  p.  35. 

^  Horn.  iii.  4,  ad  Eplies. 

3  In  Matth.  Horn.  82.  6,  vol.  vii.  p.  790. 

••  Bib.  Pat.  iv.  407. 

^  In  Epis.  i.  ad  Corin.  cap.  xi. 

^  In  Joan.  xii.  vol,  iv.  p.  1104. 

^  Sermo  Ixxi.  17.     Vide  also  Sermo  cclxvi.  7. 


220      CHRIST'S  REAL  PRESENCE  NO  INTERFERENCE 

to  himself." '  And  of  tlie  rich  he  says,  "  they  are  brought  to 
tlie  table  of  Christ,  and  receive  of  His  Body  and  Blood,  but 
they  only  worship,  they  are  not  refreshed,  because  they  do  not 
imitate."^ 

And  now,  then,  we  are  in  a  condition  to  affirm,  that  the 
language  of  the  ancient  Church  was  not  only  incompatible  with 
the  theories  of  Zuinglius  and  Calvin,  but  that  we  can  trace  its 
accordance  in  a  different  doctrine.  It  has  been  seen  how  the 
verbal  discrej  ancies  of  its  various  schools  illustrate  their  sub- 
stantial consent.  It  has  been  shown  what  was  the  opinion  in 
all  of  them  respecting  the  reverence  due  to  Our  Lord's  Body 
and  Blood,  as  present  under  the  form  of  the  consecrated  elements. 
Again,  they  all  believed  the  outward  form  to  be  uniformly 
accompanied  by  the  inward  reality.  So  that  they  not  only 
negative  the  idea  that  Christ's  Presence  in  the  Holy  Eucharist 
is  merely  Symbolical  or  Virtual,  but  they  may  be  adduced  as 
witnesses  to  the  truth  of  the  Real  Presence. 


CHAPTER    X. 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF    CHRIST  S    EEAI.    PRESENCE    NO   INTERFERENCE 
"WITH    THE    OFFICE    OF   THE    HOLY    GHOST. 

It  was  shown  in  the  first  six  chapters,  by  reference  to  the 
words  of  Institution,  that  the  Being  whose  Presence  is  especi- 
ally bestowed  in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  is  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
And  this  statement  has  been  confirmed  in  the  three  last  chap- 

'  De  Baptismo  c.  Don.  v.  9.     Cont.  Litt.  Petilian.  ii.  47,  p.  253. 

^  Ep.  cxl.  sec.  66.  Cont.  Crescon.  i.  25,  p.  404.  "  Pollnimus  panem, 
i.e.  Corpus  Christi,  quando  indiirni  aceedimus  ad  altare." — iS.  Jerome  on 
Malac.hi  i.  7,  vol.  iii.  p.  iSll.  Vide  also  S.  Leo,  Sermo  xli.  5,  De  Quad. 
and  Hi.  3. 


WITH  THE  OFFICE  OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST.  221 

ters,  by  the  testimony  both  of  Scripture  and  Antiquity.  But 
an  objection  may  be  made  to  this  system,  which  it  is  the  more 
necessary  to  meet,  because  it  may  be  entertained  by  earnest  and 
devout  persons.  It  may  be  thought  that  to  represent  Our  Lord 
as  communicating  those  blessings  which  this  sacrament  conveys, 
through  the  gift  of  His  Humanity,  is  an  interference  with  the 
office  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  the  sanctifier  of  Christians.  This 
objection  will  be  considered  in  the  present  chapter ;  and  it  will 
be  shown  that  the  Sacramental  system,  and  the  efficacy  attri- 
buted to  Our  Lord's  Humanity,  do  not  trench  upon  the  office  of 
God  the  Holy  Ghost  "  as  the  Lord  and  Giver  of  life." 

The  objection  referred  to  assumes  a  singular  form  in  John- 
son's learned  work  on  the  Unbloody  Sacrifice.  He  admits  the 
existence  of  a  res  sacramenii,  but  instead  of  supposing  it  to  be 
that  Body  of  Christ  which  was  born  of  the  Virgin,  and  which 
suffered  on  the  Cross,  he  imagines  that  a  new  Body  is  fonned 
for  Our  Lord  out  of  bread  and  wine  by  the  power  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  So  that,  as  Waterland  expresses  it,  he  does  not  believe 
that  "  the  elements  "  are  "  in  any  just  sense  Our  Lord's  Body," 
but  "  a  kind  of  impanation  of  the  Sj)irit."  ^  And  this  he  thinks 
a  sufficient  account  of  the  gift  bestowed  in  the  Holy  Eucharist, 
because  this  "  Sacramental  Body  and  Blood  are  made  as  power- 
ful and  effectual  for  the  ends  of  religion,  as  the  Natural  Body 
Itself  could  be,  if  It  was  present."  ^ 

Johnson  cannot  have  perceived  how  subversive  is  this  notion 
of  the  whole  economy  of  the  Gospel.  For  it  cuts  off  the  rela- 
tion of  the  Holy  Eucharist  to  the  Incarnation  of  Christ ;  and 
transfers  from  the  Mediator  a  part  of  that  work  which  has  been 
performed  through  the  taking  our  flesh.  Now  nothing  can  be 
more  certain  than  that  it  is  God  the  Son  alone  who  became 

'  Doctrine  of  the  Eucharist,  cap.  vii.  Johnson's  idea  has  an  obvious 
relation  to  that  which  was  shown  {supra,  cap.  ix.  p.  196)  to  be  character- 
istic of  the  school  of  S.  Cyril  and  S.  John  Damascene :  and  it  may  have 
resulted  therefore  from  his  wish  to  symbolize  with  the  Eastern,  rather 
than  with  the  Western  Church. 

-  Unbloody  Sacrifice,  vol.  i.  pp.  266  and  272.  Vol.  ii.  Pref.  4,  5.  Anglo- 
Cath.  Lib. 


222        CHRIST'S  REAL  PRESENCE  NO  INTERFERENCE 

Incaniato,  and  not  God  the  Father,  or  God  the  Holy  Ghost. 
But  without  entering  further  upon  the  theory  of  Johnson,  I 
shall  proceed  to  show  that  Our  Lord's  Presence  in  the  Holy 
Eucharist  in  no  respect  derogates  from  the  office  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  This  shall  he  shown,  first,  by  that  which  is  revealed 
to  us  in  Scripture  respecting  the  relation  of  these  blessed  Per- 
sons to  one  another;  and  secondly,  by  the  testimony  of  the 
Church. 

I.  Now,  on  what  does  this  notion  depend?  It  assumes  that 
it  has  belonged  to  God  the  Holy  Ghost  to  direct  and  execute  all 
the  purjwses  of  the  Divine  mercy  since  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
while  before  Our  Lord's  Ascension  the  like  function  belonged 
to  God  the  Son :  and  further,  that  the  functions  of  these  two 
Divine  Persons  in  some  way  interfere  with  one  another,  so  that 
whatsoever  is  done  by  the  one  cannot  also  be  done  by  the  other. 
Their  action  is  supposed  to  be  successive,  and  not  coincident.  It 
would  seem  to  be  believed  that  to  attribute  results  to  one  which 
are  acknowledged  to  be  effected  by  the  other,  is  to  derogate  in 
some  way  from  the  truth  of  their  personal  distinctness.  But  if 
this  be  so,  their  personal  distinctness  must  be  determined  by 
their  external  actions.  So  that  their  relations  towards  mankind 
must  be  the  circumstance  whereby  the  Three  Persons  in  the 
Blessed  Trinity  are  discriminated  from  one  another.  From 
which  it  would  follow,  that  if  man  and  the  external  world  had 
never  been  called  into  existence,  the  distinction  between  the 
Three  Blessed  Persons  had  never  been.  Now  this  is  exactly  the 
heresy  of  Sabellius. 

"We  may  not  seek  tlie  distinction,  then,  between  the  Three 
Blessed  Persons,  in  anything  less  enduring  than  themselves. 
Since  nothing  is  co-eval  with  Godhead,  in  Godhead  itself  must 
lie  the  conditions  which  determine  its  own  nature.  The  relation 
of  the  Three  Persons  towards  one  another  must  supply  the  prin- 
ciple of  their  discrimination.  Tliat  which  is  characteristic  of 
the  Father,  is  to  be  the  self-originating  source  of  Godhead.  The 
Word  is  the  Only-begotten  Son  of  the  Father.  The  Holy  Ghost 
proceeds  from  the  Father  and  the  Son.     These  are  the  condi- 


WITH  THE  OFFICE  OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST.  223 

tions  whicli  discriminate  the  Blessed  Persons  from  one  another, 
and  nothing  which  does  not  derogate  from  these  conditions,  has 
any  tendency  to  interfere  with  their  distinctness.  For  it  must 
be  remembered,  as  St.  Augustin  says,  that  "  the  Holy  Ghost 
does  not  alone  in  the  Trinity  claim  the  attribute  of  being  a 
Spirit,  or  being  Holy,  since  the  Father  is  a  Spirit,  and  the  Son 
a  Spirit;  the  Father  is  Holy,  and  the  Son  Holy."^  So  that  it 
is  an  admitted  rule,  that  whatsoever  things  the  Deity  does 
externally  towards  created  objects,  are  done  by  the  Three  Per- 
sons in  common,  and  not  by  one  more  than  another,  or  by  one 
without  another.  The  act  of  Incarnation  itself,  though  it  was 
God  the  Son  alone  who  became  man.  is  yet  spoken  of  as  effected 
by  the  whole  Trinity.  ^ 

From  these  considerations  it  follows,  that  we  have  no  reason 
for  excluding  the  action  of  one  Person  in  the  Blessed  Godhead, 
because  another  Person  is  revealed  to  us  as  having  taken  part 
in  the  same  work,  unless  there  be  something  in  the  act,  which 
interferes  with  those  primary  relations  to  one  another,  which 
constitute  the  law  of  their  adorable  nature.  Thus  the  Father* 
could  not  be  said  to  proceed  from  the  Son  or  the  Holy  Ghost ; 
nor  yet  the  Holy  Ghost  to  be  Father  *  to  the  Word ;  inasmuch 
as  even  that  mission  to  the  world  of  Creation,  whereby  these 
Blessed  Persons  exercise  their  functions  of  mercy  towai'ds  man- 
kind, has  a  just  reference  to  those  original  relations  out  of  which 
it  springs,  and  is  the  temporal  effect  of  eternal  realities.  But 
these  eternal  relations  supply  the  only  principle,  whereby  we 
can  limit  those  temporal  relations  in  the  world  of  time,  through 
which  they  are  made  known  to  us. 

1  De  Trinitate,  xv.  37. 

^  "  Incamationem  Verbi  Trinitas  fecit ;  et  tamen  non  pertinet  Incar- 
natio  nisi  ad  Verbum." — De  Triii.  Tract.  9,  Append,  to  S.  Ambrose,  vol. 
ii.  p.  326.  Vide  S.  Augus.  Sermo  Ixxi.  26,  27.  Petavius  de  Trinitate, 
viii.  1,  13  ;  and  de  Incarnatione,  ii.  4.  2. 

^  "Pater  nusquam  dicitur  missus." — S.  Augus.  de  Trinit.  ii.  8.  Vide 
Petayius  de  Trinitate,  viii.  1,  14. 

*  "  De  Spiritu  Sancto  natus  est  Filiua  Dei  Patris,  non  Spiritus  Sancti." 
— S.  Augus.  Enchiridion,  cap.  39.  Vide  Eleventh  Council  of  Toledo. 
Mard.  iii.  1022. 


224       CHRIST'S  REAL  PRESENCE  NO  INTERFERENCE 

It  is  the  more  necessary  to  bear  this  principle  in  mind, 
because  it  has  been  made  an  objection,  as  well  to  the  teaching 
of  Holy  Scripture,  as  to  the  language  of  the  Church,  that  names 
and  offices,  which  at  times  are  distinctive  of  one  Person  in  the 
Blessed  Trinity,  are  elsewhere  applied  to  Godhead  at  large, 
or  to  each  Person^  indiscriminately.  Thus  it  has  been  argued 
by  the  German  Neologists,  that  the  very  same  office,  which 
in  the  three  first  Gospels  (the  Syuopticers,  as  they  term  them) 
is  assigned  to  the  Spirit,  is  attributed  in  St.  John's  Gospel  to 
the  Logos.  In  the  former  they  say  Christ  is  represented  as  a 
man  actuated  by  the  Spirit ;  while  St.  John  introduces  a  new 
idea,  and  attributes  the  same  functions  to  the  Word.  So  far 
as  there  is  any  justice  in  the  remark,  its  cause  is  not  only  that 
truths,  which  are  stated  in  more  general  terms  in  earlier  books 
of  Scripture,  are  more  explicitly  revealed  in  later,  but  also  that 
the  action  of  God  the  Word  by  no  means  excludes  the  agency 
of  God  the  Holy  .Ghost.  This  might  be  gathered  from  St. 
Matthew,  as  well  as  from  St.  John :  the  former  states  Our 
Lord's  declaration  that  all  power  was  given  unto  Him  in  Hea- 
ven and  in  earth,  and  recoids  the  threefold  I'orm  of  Bajitism  ; 
while  the  latter  relates  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  upon  Our 
Lord  at  His  Baptism. 

The  very  same  difficulty,  again,  which  has  been  supposed 
to  attach  to  the  statements  of  Holy  Scripture,  may  be  raised 
in  regard  to  the  teaching  of  the  Primitive  Church.  "  No  one 
who  is  acquainted  with  the  writings  of  the  earlier  Fathers, 
can  deny  that  the  words  'Spirit,'  or  'Holy  Spirit,'  were  not 
used  by  them  as  a  name  peculiar  to  one  Person,  but  were 
supposed  to  be  common  to  the  whole  Godhead,  and  were  attri- 
buted indifferently  to  the  Father,  the  Sou,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  "^  This  uncertainty  of  expression  continued  till  the 
language  of  theology  received  that  more   exact   shape,  which 

'  This  is  observed  as  respects  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  by  S.  Cyril 
on  St.  John  vi.  64,  vol.  iv.  p.  377. 

-  Benedictine  Preface  to  S.  Hilary,  where  various  instances  are  cited 
iu  support  of  the  statement  here  made  ;  sec.  62. 


WITH  THE  OFFICE  OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST.  225 

was  given  to  it  by  the  great  Divines  of  the  fourth  century. 
But  if  the  offices  of  these  Divine  Persons  had  been  wholly 
distinct,  there  would  have  been  nothing  to  lead  to  such  am- 
biguity. When  the  growth  of  heresy  made  it  necessary  to 
introduce  more  rigorous  precision,  it  was  observed  that  the 
temporal  Mission  of  God  the  Word  and  of  God  the  Holy  Ghost, 
arose  oat  of  the  principles  of  their  external  existence ;  that 
their  nature  was  fixed  by  their  relations  to  the  eternal  Father, 
and  to  one  another,  (the  only  relations  which  were  co-eval 
with  themselves) ;  and  therefore  that  the  true  test  by  which 
their  operations  were  to  be  discriminated,  must  be  found  in 
themselves.  Hence  arose  the  statement  that  the  Holy  Ghost 
proceeds  from  the  Son  as  well  as  from  the  Father — a  statement 
which,  though  not  denied  by  earlier  writers,  yet  had  never 
received  that  full  and  elaborate  treatment  which  led  to  its 
insertion  as  an  Article  of  the  Creed,  till  it  came  into  discussion 
in  St.  Augustin's  great  work  on  the  Trinity.  It  fully  accords 
indeed  with  the  language  of  all  earlier  writers  both  in  the 
East  and  West,  for  all  speak  of  God  the  Holy  Ghost  as  sent 
by  the  Son,  and  recognize  His  actings  in  the  woi'ld  of  time 
as  growing  out  of  His  eternal  relations :  but  in  this,  as  in 
every  other  particular,  there  was  a  lack  of  that  dogmatic  pre- 
cision which  was  found  to  be  necessary,  when  "  by  reason  of 
use  "  the  Church  had  her  senses  exercised  to  discern  good  and 
evil.  From  St.  Augustin's  time  this  truth  was  never  disputed 
by  any  Western  writers,  and  it  was  admitted  by  the  most 
distinguished    divine  ^    who    succeeded    him    in   the   East.     It 

^  Whatever  may  be  said  of  the  other  Greek  Divines  who  preceded  the 
Great  Schism,  I  think  it  clear  that  S.  Cyril  held  the  Double  Procession. 
His  declaration  that  "the  Spirit  is  from  the  Substance  of  the  Father  and 
the  Son,"  coupled  with  the  passage  immediately  following,  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  "proceeds  from  the  Father  and  the  Son  "  [in  the  34th  Book  of  his 
Thesaurus,  p.  345]  ;  and  again,  the  statement  that  the  "Spirit  is  God," 
"because  He  is  of  the  Substance  of  the  Son"  [J(L  p.  346],  are  surely  de- 
cisive. For  that  the  Holy  Ghost  proceeds /ro?)i  the  Substance  of  the  Son, 
is  all  which  is  required  by  the  advocates  of  the  Double  Procession. 
Numerous  other  passages  from  S.  Cyril's  works  are  collected  by  Petavius 
de  Trinitate,  vii.  3,  6 — 11.  The  other  divines,  whose  language  was  less 
distinct,  may  have  designed  merely  to  deny  the  heretical  assertion  that 


226         CHKIST'S  REAL  PRESENCE  NO  INTERFERENCE 

seems  to  have  been  put  upon  its  right  basis  by  the  council 

of  Toledo,  when   it  was   affirmed  to  be  essential  to  the  full 

the  Holy  Ghost  waa  a  creation  of  the  Son ;  and  this  they  supposed  was 
to  be  best  done  by  representing  Him  as  the  natural  efflux  of  Deity,  that 
is,  as  proceeding  from  the  Father.  This  was  by  no  means  equivalent  to 
the  assertion  that  He  does  not  proceed  from  the  Son  also — as  being  one 
jirinciple  and  of  one  substance  with  the  Father.  Indeed,  as  the  Son  was 
supposed  to  inherit  all  the  Father's  attributes,  except  self-e.xistence.  He 
must  have  inherited  that  of  being  the  Source  whence  the  Holy  Ghost 
proceeded.  But  the  same  argument  is  not  applicable  to  the  Holy  Ghost, 
because  as  the  Son  is  antecedent  (in  the  order  of  relations),  the  Holy 
Ghost  inherits  only  those  attributes  of  Godhead,  besides  self-existence, 
which  are  compatible  with  the  relations  of  the  Father  to  the  Son.  "  The 
Holy  Ghost  has  this  characteristic  sign  of  His  hypostatic  individuality, 
that  He  is  taken  note  of  after  the  Son,  and  with  the  Son,  and  that  He 
has  His  existence  from  the  Father."  S.  Basil,  Ep.  38,  sec.  4,  vol.  iii. 
p.  117.  So  that  the  Holy  Ghost  cannot  be  the  source  of  the  Son,  as  the 
Son  is  the  source  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  statements  of  the  early  Greek 
writers  that  the  Holy  Ghost  proceeds  from  the  Father  throii'jli  the  Sou, 
are  virtually  equivalent  to  the  more  exact  expressions  introduced  by 
S.  Augustin.  And  it  must  be  observed  that  no  primitive  \vriter  of  ap- 
proved reputation  has  written  against  the  Double  Procession,  while 
S.  Augustin,  whose  authority  was  universally  admitted  both  in  the  East 
and  West,  has  avowedly  written  in  its  favour.  [Theodoret  is  no  excep- 
tion, because  his  objections  to  S.  Cyril's  Anathemas  were  %\Tittsn  under 
the  idea  that  S.  Cyi-il  had  adopted  the  Arian  hypothesis,  and  moreover 
they  were  not  approved  even  by  the  Eastern  Church.]  Indeed,  S.  Augus- 
tin's  statements  are  so  decisive,  that  Mr.  Neale,  who  has  evidently 
written  on  this  subject  with  a  bias  in  favour  of  the  Eastern  Church, 
can  find  nothing  to  say  against  them,  but  that  they  maij  be  spurious. 
But  of  this  there  is  no  proof:  the  Benedictine  Edition  of  the  J)e  Trinitaie 
is  founded  on  a  c  dlation  of  above  sixty  manuscripts  ;  and  the  passages 
objected  to  by  Mr.  Neale  are  found  in  all  of  them.  Several  early  manu- 
scripts of  the  Be  Trinitntr,  exhibiting  tlie  common  text,  are  preserved  at 
Oxf  ird,  and  an  Uncial  manuscript  (No  1556),  in  the  Bodleian,  would  be 
sufficient  in  itself  to  decide  the  question.  Its  date  in  the  seventh  or 
eighth  century  (a  hundred  years  probably  before  the  time  of  Photius), 
proves  that  it  could  not  have  been  falsified  to  meet  his  statements ;  and 
the  slightest  inspection  shows  that  the  passages  in  question  have  not  been 
tampered  witli.  Moreover,  the  statements  of  S.  Augustin  are  so  inter- 
twined with  the  whole  thread  of  his  reasoning,  that  it  would  be  impossi- 
ble to  dissever  them,  llie  same  may  be  said  of  S.  Augustin's  imitator, 
S.  Fulgentius,  in  whom  the  statement  of  the  Double  Procession  recurs 
constantly.  [Vide  IW,.  Pat.  vol.  ix.  pp.  31',  40,  lb3,  190,  193,  289,  295.] 
Dots  not  this  whole  controversy  respecting  the  Double  Procession  arise 
from  the  immethodical  manner  in  wliich  the  writers  of  the  first  three 
centuries  spoke  of  the  Third  Person  in  the  Blessed  Trinity;  and  might 
not  objections  of  the  same  sort  be  made  to  His  Godhead,  His  Personality, 
and  to  the  propriety  of  making  Him  the  object  of  prayer  ? 


WITH  THE  OFFICE  OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST.  227 

discrimination  of  those  Blessed  Persons,  the  law  of  whose 
existence  must  be  found  within  themselves.  "  The  Holy  Ghost 
is  neither  the  Father  nor  the  Son,  because  He  proceeds  from 
the  Father  and  the  Son."  ^  And  thus  does  it  confirm  that 
principle  which  had  been  laid  down  at  an  earlier  period,  that 
the  names  and  offices  of  the  Persons  in  the  Blessed  Trinity 
are  dependent  upon  their  relations  towards  one  another.  ^ 

We  may  conclude,  then,  with  certainty,  that  there  is  no 
reason  for  excluding  the  operation  of  God  the  Word  from 
the  Holy  Eucharist,  because  the  consecration  of  the  sacred 
Elements  is  attributed  to  God  the  Holy  Ghost,  unless  there 
be  something  in  the  relations  of  these  Blessed  Persons  towards 
one  another,  by  which  their  co-operation  in  this  action  is 
rendered  inadmissible.  But  so  far  is  this  from  being  the 
case,  that  their  relations  towards  one  another  would  lead  us 
to  expect  the  exact  contrary :  they  render  it  antecedently 
probable  that  God  the  Son  and  God  the  Holy  Ghost  would 
co-operate  in  any  great  work  of  mercy ;  and  more  especially 
in  that  ordinance  which  has  been  appointed  as  the  means  of 
giving  effect  to  the  Incarnation,  by  building  up  the  mystical 
Body  of  Christ. 

That  these  Divine  Persons  co-operate  in  all  works  of  mercy, 
is  apparent  from  the  benediction  of  the  Apostle ;  "  The  grace 
of  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  love  of  God,  and  the  communion 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  be  with  you  all."  Hereby  we  learn  how  all 
Three  Persons  in  the  Blessed  Godhead  take  part  in  the  salva- 
tion of  mankind.  But  this  is  more  esjaecially  the  case  in  the 
Holy  Eucharist,  wherein  that  gift,  which  is  bestowed  by  the 
mercy  of  the  Father,  is  conveyed  to  us  through  the  unbounded 
goodness  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  For  the  revealed 
law,  according  to  which  these  adorable  Persons  are  declared  to 

^  Witassius  de  Trinitate,  Quaes,  ix.  Art.  iii.  cap.  iii.  as  explanatory  of 
the  Creed  of  the  Eleventh  Council  of  Toledo. 

^  "  TO  .  .  ,  TTJs  trpos  aWr]\a  (XXfCfois  Siacpopov,  Sid(popov  avru/v  Kal  rtjv 
K\rjariv  TreTTOiTjKe." — j8'.  Greg.  Nazian.  Oratio  37,  vol.  i.  p.  597.  (Paris, 
1630.)  Vide  also  S.  Gregory  Nyssen.  lib.  i.  contra  Eunom.  and  Epistola 
ad  Ablavium. 

Q  2 


228       CHRIST'S  REAL  PRESENCE  NO  INTERFERENCE 

exist,  tends  directly  to  their  co-operation  in  this  work.  The 
characteristic  of  the  second  Person  in  the  Blessed  Trinity  is  to 
exist  according  to  that  law  of  Sonship  whereby  He  is  a  repre- 
sentative of  the  Eternal  Father — "  the  express  image  of  His 
Person."  And  since  the  Source  of  all  things  is  an  Eternal 
Mind,  and  since  mind  images  itself  in  its  thoughts,  therefore 
He,  who  is  ever  with  God,  is  called  His  Word,  or  wisdom.  ^ 
"Whosoever,"  says  St.  Augustin,  "can  conceive  of  a  word 
not  only  before  it  is  uttered,  but  even  before  the  sounds  which 
express  it  receive  a  being  in  our  thoughts,  he  may  see  a  sort 
of  lilieness  of  that  AVord  of  which  it  was  said,  '  in  the  beginning 
was  the  Word.' "  "^  Again,  the  characteristic  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
is  to  proceed  from  the  Father  and  the  Son.  In  Him  we  have 
no  law  of  Sonship,  no  representation  of  that  from  which  He 
originates,  but  He  is  the  Eternal  Sijirit,  who  is  common  to 
those  Divine  Persons  who  are  bound  together  by  that  un- 
utterable oneness,  which  unites  the  Father  and  the  Only- 
Begotten  Son.  "  The  Holy  Ghost,  according  to  the  sacred 
Scriptures,  is  not  the  Siairit  of  the  Father  alone,  nor  of  the 
Son  alone,  but  of  both ;  and  therefore  He  suggests  to  us  that 
common  Love,  wherewith  the  Father  and  the  Son  mutually 
love  one  another." ' 

Of  these  two  Divine  Persons,  then,  it  M'as  God  the  Son,  "  by 
whom  "  *  the  worlds  were  made.  By  that  j^ower  which  flowed 
into  Him  from  the  source  of  all  by  necessary  derivation,  did  He 
produce  those  effects  of  which,  in  another  sense,  the  whole 
Blessed  Trinity  may  be  said  to  be  the  cause.  And  since  by 
i-easou  of  His  Sonship  He  was  Himself  the  image  and  effulgence 
of  His  Eternal  Father,  therefore  man,  whom  He  created  in  His 
own  image,  was  created  "  in  the  image  of  God."  And  hence  did 
the  Primitive  Church  discern  a  wonderful  example  of  the 
wisdom  as  well  as  the  love  of  God,  in  that  merciful  economy 
whereby  He  who  created  man  was  pleased  to  redeem  him. 
"  It  seemeth  a  thing  unconsonant,"  says   Hooker,  "  that   the 

'  St.  John  i.  1.     Proverbs  viii.  30.  -  De  Trin.  xv.  19. 

^  S.  Aug.  de  Trin.  xv.  27.  ''  Hebrews  i.  2. 


WITH  THE  OFFICE  OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST.  229 

world  should  honour  any  other  as  the  Saviour  but  Him  whom 
it  honoureth  as  the  Creator  of  the  world."  ^  "  Now  what 
is  that  image  of  God,"  says  Origen,  "  in  whose  likeness  man 

was  made,  except  our  Saviour  ? In  His  likeness  man  was 

created,  and  therefore  our  Saviour,  who  is  the  image  of  God, 
moved  with  compassion  for  man's  state,  when  He  saw  him 
strij)ped  of  that  likeness,  and  clothed  with  the  likeness  of 
the  Fiend,  took  man's  form  and  came  to  him."  ^  Thus  did 
the  Everlasting  Son  enter  into  the  world  of  time,  and  He 
who  was  the  Father's  representative  by  Eternal  Generation, 
became  His  repi^esentative  also  by  temporal  birth.  For  He 
"  is  the  image  of  the  invisible  God,  the  firstborn  of  every 
creature."  "  For  it  was  fitting,"  says  St.  Ambrose,  "  that 
He  should  ransom  who  created  us."  ^  "  God  sent  His  Son, 
that  He  who  was  the  Creator  of  the  world  should  be  also 
its  Redeemer."  *  Thus,  because  Christ  made  man,  was  He 
pleased  to  remake  him ;  and  that  He  might  remake  him 
did  He  Himself  become  Incarnate ;  and  because  He  took 
our  nature  in  the  Virgin's  womb,  it  is  He  who  communicates 
Himself  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  to  His  earthly  brethren.  For 
this  Sacrament  is  built  upon  the  truth  of  Our  Lord's  Incar- 
nation, and  is  the  medium  whereby  that  gift,  which  was 
bestowed  therein  upon  the  body  at  large,  is  distributed  to 
its  individual  members.  Such  is  the  statement  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture, as  exjDlained  by  the  concurrent  testimony  of  antiquity. 
"  I  am  the  living  bread  which  came  down  from  heaven ;  if 
any  man  eat  of  this  bread  he  shall  live  for  ever:  and  the 
bread  which  I  will  give  is  My  Flesh,  which  I  will  give  for 
the  life  of  the  world."  The  ultimate  principle  of  life  is  Deity 
alone,  by  which  the  spiritual  inhabitants  of  heaven  are  per- 
petually replenished.  But  God  became  Flesh  that  "man" 
might  "  eat  angels'  food,"  and  that  the  children  of  earth  might 

»  Eccl.  Polity,  V.  51.  3. 

^  Homil.  i.  in  Genesim,  vol.  ii.  p.  57.     (Delarue.)  ^  De  Fide. 

*  S.  Aug.  in  Petavius  de  Incam.  ii.  15.  3 ;    vide  also  S.  Athan.  contra 
ApoUin.  ii.  10. 


230       CHRIST'S  REAL  PRESENCE  NO  INTERFERENCE 

be  enabled  to  participate  with  the  children  of  heaven.  "  I  am 
that  bread  of  life."  "  For  man,"  says  St.  Augustin,  "  does  not 
live  on  one  food  and  angels  on  another.  He  Himself  is  the 
truth,  the  wisdom,  the  virtue  of  God.  But  angels  partake  of 
it  as  you  cannot  do.  For  how  do  angels  partake  of  it?  As 
that  statement  teaches,  'in  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and 
the  Word  was  with  God,  and  the  Word  was  God,'  by  which 
all  things  were  made.  But  how  do  you  come  in  contact  with 
it?  Because  'the  Word  was  made  Flesh  and  dwelt  among  us.' 
For,  that  man  might  eat  the  bread  of  angels,  the  Creator  of 
angels  was  made  man."  ' 

To  connect  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  with  the  fact 
of  the  Incarnation,  was  the  universal  practice  of  the  ancient 
Church.  We  see  it  as  early  as  St.  Ignatius  and  Justin  Mai-tyr, 
in  the  age  which  directly  followed  the  Apostles.  St.  Ignatius 
complains  that  the  Docetse  "  kept  aloof  from  the  Holy  Eucha- 
rist, because  they  would  not  confess  the  Eucharist  to  be  the 
Flesh  of  Our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  which  suifered  for  our 
sins."  ^  Justin  Martyr ''  founds  the  belief  that  the  food  which 
we  receive  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  "  not  common  bread  and 
common  drink,"  but  "  the  Flesh  and  Blood  of  the  Incarnate 
Jesus,"  on  the  fact  that  He  "has  taken  Flesh  and  Blood  for 
our  salvation."  To  pass  to  a  later,  but  a  high  authority, 
St.  Cyril  says,  in  the  celebrated  letter  which  introduced  his 
;)iiathemas,  and  which  was  sanctioned  by  the  Council  of 
Ephesus :  "  We  approach  the  Holy  Eucharist  and  are  sancti- 
fied, by  becoming  partakers  of  the  sacred  Flesh,  and  the 
precious  Blood  of  Christ,  our  common  Saviour.  Now  we  do 
this,  not  as  though  we  received  common  flesh,  God  forbid. 
Nor  yet  as  though  that  which  we  received  belonged  to  a  man 
who  was  sanctified,  and  who  came  in  contact  with  the  AVord 
by  oneness  of  excellence,  or  who  received  the  Word  as  a  divine 

'  S.  August,  in  Ps.  cxxxiv.  sec.  5. 

-  Ad  SuiymiKos,  vi.  The  relation  between  the  Incarnation  and  the 
Holy  Eucharist  is  strikinj^ly  drawn  out  by  S.  John  Danias. — De  Fide 
Urthixl.  iv.  13,  vol.  i.  pp.  267,  2(38.  ^  Apol.  i.  sec.  66. 


WITH  THE  OFFICE  OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST.  231 

indweller.  But  we  receive  it  as  truly  life-giving,  and  as  per- 
taining properly  to  the  "Word  Himself.  For  as  God  He  was 
naturally  the  principle  of  life,  and  since  He  has  become  one 
with  His  own  Flesh,  He  has  rendered  it  also  life-giving."  * 

Whether  we  regard,  then,  the  revealed  law  of  His  nature,  or 
the  scriptural  record  of  His  acts,  we  see  reason  for  supposing 
that  the  immediate  oj)eration  of  the  Incarnate  Son  cannot  be 
excluded  from  the  Holy  Eucharist.  But  the  very  same  process 
of  inquiry  shows  that  this  sacrament  depends  likewise  upon  the 
operation  of  God  the  Holy  Ghost.  So  much  may  be  deduced 
both  from  His  acts  and  from  His  nature.  The  characteristic 
law  of  His  nature  has  been  stated  to  be,  that  He  jproceeds  and 


'  Harduin,  i.  1289.  This  truth  is  expressed  in  a  very  striking  manner 
by  Calvin,  Institutes,  iv.  xvii.  7,  8,  9.  "I  interpret,"  he  says,  "as  S.  Cyril 
does,  the  words  of  Christ,  'as  the  Father  hath  life  in  Himself,  so  hath 
He  given  to  the  Son  to  have  life  in  Himself.'  In  this  passage  Our  Lord 
does  not  speak  so  much  of  those  gifts  v^rhieh  He  had  from  the  beginning 
with  the  Father,  as  of  those  with  which  He  was  endowed  in  that  Flesh 
in  which  He  appeared  :  He  showed  therefore  that  the  fulness  of  life  dwelt 
in  His  Humanity  also,  so  that  whosoever  should  communicate  in  His 
Flesh  and  Blood,  would  at  the  same  time  enjoy  the  participation  of  life. 
This  may  be  illustrated  by  a  familiar  example.  A  fountain  may  supply 
water  to  those  who  drink,  or  those  who  draw,  or  those  who  would  irrigate 
their  fields  ;  but  it  is  not  from  itself  that  it  derives  such  exuberance  as 
may  answer  their  several  wants,  but  because  the  spring  is  furnishing  a 
perpetual  stream  whereby  it  is  ever  replenished.  In  like  manner  Christ's 
Flesh  is  as  it  were  a  wealthy  and  exhaustless  fountain,  whereby  that  life 
which  dwells  in  Deity  as  its  source  is  transfused  into  us.  Who  does  not 
see,  then,  that  the  communion  of  the  Flesh  and  Blood  of  Christ  is  neces- 
sary to  all  who  aspire  to  the  heavenly  life  ?  To  this  refer  those  dicta  of 
the  Apostle,  that  the  Church  is  '  Christ's  Body,'  '  the  fulness  of  Him  that 
filleth  all  in  all ; '  that  '  He  is  the  Head  from  whom  the  whole  body  by 
joints  and  bands  maketh  increase,  having  nourisliment  ministered  ;'  that 
our  bodies  are  the  '  members  of  Christ.'  Now  all  these  cannot  take  effect 
unless  He  is  wholly  united  to  us,  both  in  spirit  and  body.  Yet  the  Apo- 
stle goes  on  to  draw  more  closely  the  bonds  by  which  we  are  united  to 
His  Flesh,  and  to  illustrate  this  truth  in  still  more  splendid  terms,  when 
He  says,  that  '  we  are  members  of  His  Body,  of  His  Flesh,  and  of  His 
Bones.'  In  fine,  that  he  might  declare  the  thing  to  be  beyond  expression, 
he  breaks  forth  into  an  exclamation  :  '  this  is  a  great  mystery  ! '  It  would 
be  madness  therefore  to  deny  that  the  faithful  have  communion  with  the 
Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  when  the  Apostle  declares  it  to  be  so  intimate 
a  communion,  that  he  can  rather  wonder  at  than  explain  it." 


232       CHRIST'S  REAL  PRESENCE  NO  INTERFERENCE 

is  not  begotten.  He  proceeds  primarily '  from  the  Father  as 
the  source  of  all ;  but  inasmuch  as  the  son  inherits  from  the 
Father  all  attributes  of  Godhead  except  to  be  self-originated, 
therefore  He  proceeds  equally  from  the  Son  likewise.  And 
being  thus,  as  Scripture  expresses  it,  both  "  the  Spirit  of  the 
Father,"  and  "  the  Spirit  of  the  Son,"  He  is  the  "  consubstantial 
and  co-eternal  communion  of  them  both  ;  Avhich,  if  it  may  be 
termed  their  friendship,"  says  St.  Augustin,  "  let  it  be  so  de- 
nominated ;  but  surely  it  is  more  fitly  called  their  love."  "^  And 
by  reason  of  this  common  derivation  from  the  Father  and  the 
Son,  which  is  the  revealed  law  of  His  nature,  it  is  characteristic 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  be  Himself  the  principle  of  unity  and 
fellowshij).  His  name  is  love,  because  "  He  naturally  unites 
those  from  whom  He  proceeds."^  As  the  Son  is  the  wisdom 
of  the  Eternal  Father,  because  thought  is  the  progeny  or 
reproduction  of  mind,  ^  so  is  Love  the  nature  of  Him,  the 
law  of  whose  Being  is  to  be  the  principle  of  alliance.  And 
since  love,  when  it  shows  itself  in  acts,  goes  by  the  name  of 
goodness,  therefore  is  He  spoken  of  in  Scripture,  as  well  by 
reference  to  His  original  nature,  as  to  His  gracious  operations. 
In  reference  to  the  first,  we  read  that  "  the  love  of  God  is  shed 
abroad  in  our  hearts  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  is  given  unto 
us:"  in  regard  to  the  second  we  know  that  "according  to  His 
mercy  He  saved  us  by  the  ....  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

Now  it  is  because  the  Holy  Ghost  thus  proceeds  as  the 
principle  of  love,  that  He  does  not  share  that  name  of  Son, 

^  "Non  dicitur  verburn  Dei  nisi  Filiua,  nee  donum  Dei  nisi  Spiritus 
Sanctus,  nee  de  quo  genitum  est  verbum  et  de  quo  principaliter  procedit 
Spiritus  Saactus,  nisi  Deus  Pater.  Ideo  autem  addidi  principaliter,  quia 
et  de  Filio  Spiritus  Sanctus  procedere  reperitur.  Sed  hoc  quoque  illi 
Pater  dedit  non  jam  existenti,  et  nondum  habenti,  sed  quicquid  Unigenito 
Verbo  dedit,  gignendo  dedit." — 8.  Aug.  de  Triii.  xv.  29.  [This  passage 
is  found  in  the  MSS.  of  J>e  Tnnitafe  of  the  seventh  or  eighth  century, 
Bodleian,  No.  1556,  as  well  as  in  all  the  MSS.  collated  by  the  Benedic- 
tines.]    Vide  iS.  Au(j.  Serm.  Ixxi.  26. 

*  De  Triu.  vi.  5. 

^  "  Quia  naturaliter  eos,  a  quibus  procedit,  conjungit." — Isklonu-  ///*•- 
paletmx.  OrUj.  lib.  7. 

'  Vide  S.  Basil,  Homil.  xvi.  3,  vol.  ii.  p.  136. 


WITH  THE  OFFICE  OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST.  233 

which  pertains  to  the  Only-begotten  of  the  Father.  "  Why- 
is  not  the  Holy  Spirit  called  a  Son,"  asks  St.  Augustin,  "  since 
He  also  proceeds  from  the  Father?  Because  He  proceeds, 
not  as  one  who  is  born,  but  as  one  who  is  given."  ^  From 
which  circumstance  arises  this  difference,  that  while  the  Eternal 
Son  is  the  resemblance  or  image  of  the  Father,  as  thought  is 
of  mind,  the  Holy  Ghost,  on  the  other  hand,  may  be  rather 
assimilated  to  an  effect,  which  terminates  in  action.  His  nature 
leads  us  to  think  not  of  a  work  but  of  an  energy.'^  "  The  Word, 
so  soon  as  it  is  thought  of,  shows  that  it  is  the  Son  of  that 
from  which  it  is  derived,  by  presenting  its  Father's  image. 
But  Love  shows  that  it  is  not  a  Son,  because,  though  it  is 
known  to  proceed  from  the  Father  and  the  Son,  yet  it  does 
not  present  to  our  view  this  clear  likeness  of  that  from  which 
it  has  its  origin."  ^  And  when  we  follow  its  course  from  heaven 
to  earth,  we  find  its  merciful  operations  towards  mankind  to  be 
diverse  from  those  of  the  eternal  Son.  Man  was  fashioned  by 
the  Son  after  His  own  image ;  but  the  Holy  Ghost  moved  as 
an  informing  Spirit  through  the  shapeless  chaos.  It  was  the 
Son  alone  who  took  man's  nature  by  Incarnation,  and  thus 
restored  the  perfect  type  of  humanity,  by  becoming  the  new 
Head  of  mankind.  But  in  this  work  did  the  Holy  Ghost  co- 
operate, seeing  that  it  is  His  nature,  as  various  Fathers  express 
it,  to  be  a  "  sanctifying  power."  *  So  that  He  gave  effect  to  the 
will  of  the  Father  and  the  Sou,  and  was  the  active  instrument 
through  whose  intervention  that  crowning  act  of  mercy  was 
eifected.  "  The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the 
power  of  the  Highest  shall  overshadow  thee ;  therefore  also 
that  Holy  Thing  which  shall  be  born  of  thee  shall  be  called 
the  Son  of  God."  But  in  this  great  work  He  acted  according 
to  the  eternal  law  of  His  nature ;  as  an  agent,  not  a  Parent ; 
He  did  not  interfere  with  the  functions  of  the  Father  or  the 

^  De  Trin.  v.  14.  ^  Vide  Summa  Tlieologise.  i.  xxvii.  4. 

^  S.  Anselm,  Monologion,  cap.  55. 

*  "  Ativafjus  dyiaffTmr)." — S.  Cyril.  Thesaurus,  No.  34,  Damasc.  de  Fide 
Orth.  i.  13. 


234        CHKIST'S  REAL  PRESENCE  NO  INTERFERENCE 

Son ;  He  was  neither  incarnate  like  the  one,  nor  did  He  share 
the  office  of  paternity  with  the  other.  The  Man  Christ  Jesus 
was  created '  by  tlie  Holy  Ghost  in  the  Virgin's  womb.  And 
as  it  was  His  office  to  co-operate  in  the  work  of  the  Incarna- 
tion, so  likewise  in  that  consequence  of  it,  which  is  exhibited 
in  the  Holy  Eucharist.  For  Our  Lord  referred  to  Him  as 
the  principle  by  whom  His  own  merciful  presence  with  mankind 
would  be  iierpetuated.  "When  about  to  bestow  the  gift  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  as  that  which  was  to  supply  the  place  of  His 
sensible  presence,  He  says,  "  I  will  not  leave  you  comfortless,  I 
will  come  to  you."  And  therefore  it  would  seem  that  the  gift 
of  the  Comforter  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  was  a  necessary  con- 
dition of  Our  Lord's  approach.  Till  that  event  the  Disciples 
continued  in  pi*ayer  and  supplication :  afterwards,  the  "  Break- 
ing of  Bread  "  is  put  forward  as  the  chief  feature  of  their  wor- 
ship. This  would  be  unintelligible,  if  the  Holy  Eucharist  were 
only  a  commemoration  of  Christ ;  for  when  should  He  be  so 
naturally  remembered  as  just  after  His  departure  ?  But  it 
follows  by  necessary  consequence,  if  the  act  be  that  mysterious 
participation  in  Our  Incarnate  Lord,  which  is  effected  through 
the  agency  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Thus  are  these  two  Divine 
Persons  spoken  of  as  coinciding  in  the  result,  though  differing 
in  the  manner  of  their  operation.  "  For  as  the  virtue  of  Our 
Lord's  sacred  Flesh,"  says  St.  Cyril,  "  makes  those,  in  whom  He 
is,  to  be  one  body ;  so  does  the  one  indivisible  Spirit  who  dwells 
in  all,  bring  all  to  one  spiritual  unity."  "^  Such  statements  do 
not  derogate  from  the  office  of  the  Incarnate  Son,  or  supersede 
the  truth  of  His  Presence,  any  moie  than  the  Spirit's  agency  in 
the  miraculous  conception  interferes  with  the  truth  of  the 
Incarnation.  As  it  was  the  Spirit's  power  by  whom  that 
work  was  effected,  and  yet  it  was  the  Etenial  Son  who  became 

'  "  Homo  assnmptus  ex  Maria  operatio  Spiritus  Sancti  fuit,  non  portio  ; 
nee  ab  eo  geiiitus,  sed  creatus ;  conceptus  est  potentia  non  substantia  : 
operatione  non  participatione ;  virtute  non  genere." — jS.  Paschasii  de 
Spiritu  i<ancio,  lib.  i.  cap.  ii.     Bih.  Put.  viii.  808. 

'^  S.  Cyril  in  Joan.  xvii.  22,  lib.  xi.  11,  vol.  iv.  p.  1000. 


WITH  THE  OFFICE  OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST.  235 

Incarnate,  so  is  it  God  the  "Word  who  is  present  in  the  Holy 
Eucharist  through  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

The  truth  appears  to  be,  that  as  the  theory  which  would 
represent  the  gift  which  is  bestowed  in  the  Holy  Eucharist 
to  be  communicated  in  some  manner  irrespective  of  the  con- 
secrated elements,  is  unconnected  and  incompatible  with  the 
system  of  the  Church,  so  the  notion  that  the  actions  of  the 
Three  Blessed  Persons  are  successive  and  not  coincident,  is 
at  variance  with  its  highest  mystery — the  Trinity  in  Unity. 
For  it  is  formed  in  reality  on  a  Heathen,  not  a  Christian 
model ;  and  is  a  relic  of  that  system  of  Polytheism  which  fell 
before  the  Economy  of  Grace.  It  was  the  principle  of  Heathen- 
ism to  represent  its  gods  as  a  series  of  successive  Despots,  who 
followed  one  another  according  to  the  resistless  law  of  a  sove- 
reign fate.  Not  being  supposed  to  be  self-existent,  nor  them- 
selves the  source  of  all  things,  that  plastic  principle  of  nature 
which  had  been  their  cradle,  might  be  expected  to  be  their 
grave, 

"  ovK  eK  rwv^'  eyu 
Sicraovs  rvpdvvovs  fKireaovTas  yaOof^ijv ; 
TpiToy  Se  Tuv  vvv  KoipavovvT  eiroif/of^ai 
aicrx^^'''^  ''°'  TaxiCTa," 

Over  this  system  the  ancient  Church  gained  its  first  victories. 
But  the  evil  soon  reappeared  under  the  form  of  Gnosticism, 
within  the  sacred  walls :  the  theories,  against  which  the 
Fathers  of  the  first  three  centuries  were  continually  disputing, 
were  only  adaptations  of  the  old  Heathen  principle,  that  the 
Heavenly  Hierarchy  was  a  reflexion  of  earthly  incidents,  and 
that  a  Cosmogony,  founded  on  a  series  of  material  influences, 
would  explain  the  various  actions  of  its  successive  powers. 
"When  these  mists  had  somewhat  cleared  away,  the  same  ten- 
dency reappeared  under  the  more  subtile  but  not  less  dangerous 
form  of  Sabellianism.  For  it  supposed  that  the  characteristics 
of  the  Supreme  Being  were  derived  only  from  His  actings 
towards  mankind,  and  thus  denied  the  primary  law  of  the 
Christian  sj^stem,  that  the  principle  of  all  things  lies  in  God ; 


236       CHRIST'S  REAL  PRESENCE  NO  INTERFERENCE 

that  the  relations  of  His  infinite  nature  are  independent  of 
all  created  existence,  and  have  their  deep  and  awful  origin 
in  Himself.  And  this  follows  at  once  from  the  thought  that 
the  Ultimate  Cause  is  a  person,  not  a  law — God,  and  not 
Fate — so  that  whatever  belongs  to  the  personal  completeness 
of  His  nature,  must  arise  out  of  the  original  constitution  of 
His  Being,  and  like  it,  be  self-dependent  and  archetj^pal. 

When  it  is  revealed  to  us,  then,  that  the  Wisdom  and  Love 
of  the  Supreme  Being  are  identical  with  His  Existence,^  or, 
in  other  words,  that  God  is  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost — 
the  Father  eternally  self-existent — His  Word  the  eternal  Image 
of  Himself — the  Holy  Ghost  the  Sjiirit  which  proceeds  eternally 
from  both — this  is  not  a  circumstance  which  arises  from  their 
relations  to  mankind ;  it  is  dependent  upon  those  eternal  laws 
of  their  mysterious  nature,  which  admit  of  no  alteration.  We 
must  not  dream  of  it  merely  as  a  transaction  which  took  place 
so  early  as  to  be  antecedent  to  memory :  it  Avas  not  only  before 
all  time  but  independent  of  it.  It  was  not  that  Deity  once 
existed  alone,  and  that  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost  afterwards 
came   into  being — the  Three  Persons  in    the  Blessed  Ti'inity 

^  "In  us,"  says  S.  Thomas,  "existence  and  intelligence  are  not  identi- 
cal. So  that  tliose  ideas  which  exist  in  us  through  our  intelligence,  are 
no  part  of  our  nature.  But  God's  intelligence  is  identical  with  His  ex- 
istence. And  therefore  His  Word  is  no  accident  arising  from  Him,  or 
effect  produced  by  Him,  but  belongs  to  His  nature,  and  has  a  subsistence 
of  its  own  :  for  whatever  belongs  to  the  nature  of  God  exists  in  itself." — 
Summa  Tlieol.  i.  xxxiv.  2.  This  accords  with  a  statement  of  S.  Augustin  : 
Deo  "non  est  alia  substantia  ut  sit,  et  alia  potestas  ut  possit,  sed  amsuh- 
xtantiaJe  iUi  ext  qnicijiu'd  ejaii  e!<t." — Li  Joan.  Tract,  xx.  4.  If  it  should 
be  objected  that  this  might  be  a  ground  for  personifying  other  Divine 
attributes  as  well  as  Wisdom  and  Love,  it  may  be  answered  that  we  have 
no  authority  for  doing  so  in  Scripture,  neither  has  it  been  so  understood 
by  the  Church.  S.  Thomas  adds  the  profound  thouglit ;  "  in  the  Deity 
tliere  is  no  procession,  except  in  respect  to  those  actions  which  do  not 
tend  to  anything  external,  but  rest  in  the  actor  Himself.  And  this  sort 
of  action  in  an  intellectual  being  is  of  two  kinds,  the  action  of  the  under- 
standing, and  the  action  of  the  will." — Sumiiia,  i.  xxvii.  3.  And  again, 
"  Processiones  in  divinis  accipi  non  possunt  nisi  secundum  actiones,  quae 
in  agente  uianent.  Hujusmodi  autem  actiones  in  natuni  intellectuali  et 
divinA  non  sunt  nisi  duie,  scilicet  intelligere  et  velle." — /(/.  i.  xxvii.  5. 
Vide  also  Extiu^  in  Libros  iSenteiUiarum.     In  Lib.  i.  Dis.  x.  2. 


WITH  THE  OFFICE  OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST.  237 

are  "  co-eternal  together  and  co-equal."  To  exist  in  Three  Per- 
sons in  the  eternal  law  of  Deity ;  a  law  as  characteristic  of 
its  nature  as  to  be  wise  and  good.  So  that  the  Father  is  ever 
Father,  the  Son  ever  Son,  the  Holy  Ghost  ever  proceeding 
from  both.  The  present  moment  has  the  same  relation  to  this 
wonderful  mystery,  as  any  moment  which  can  be  fixed  upon 
in  the  abyss  of  eternity.  So  that  it  were  an  impious  thought, 
says  St.  Cyril,  to  suppose  "that  the  Father  has  ever  ceased 
from  generation,"^  for  this  would  be  to  ascribe  change  to  a 
nature  which  is  unchangeable,  to  suppose  that  it  generates  at 
one  time  and  does  not  generate  at  another.  And  in  like  man- 
ner the  Procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  not  a  passing  event, 
which  took  place  at  some  particular  moment,  but  expresses 
that  abiding  relation  which  He  bears  to  the  Father  and  the 
Son.  This  relation  has  its  effect  in  those  acts  whereby  the 
Holy  Ghost  co-operates  with  the  Son  in  the  work  of  man's 
redemption.  "  He  shall  glorify  Me,  for  He  shall  receive  of 
Mine,  and  shall  show  it  unto  you."  So  that  the  Mission  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  whereby  He  co-operates  in  the  economy  of 
grace,  is  not  any  peculiar  and  detached  exercise  of  His  divine 
functions :  it  is  a  part  of  that  general  ministration  in  the 
world  of  time,  whereby  He  gives  effect  to  the  will  of  the  whole 
Blessed  Trinity.  He  co-operates  in  the  actions  of  the  Son, 
because  He  perpetually  proceeds  from  Him.  For  "  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  manifestly  shown  not  to  be  of  different  nature  from 
the  Son,  but  is  in  Him  and  of  Him,  and,  as  it  were,  His  natural 
efl&cacy,  which  is  able  to  perform  all  He  desires."^  And  again, 
"  the  Holy  Ghost  is  a  sort  of  natural  and  living  efficacy,  and, 
as  it  were,  a  quality  of  the  Godhead  of  the  Son."^  So  that 
the  acts  and  presence  of  the  one  imply,  and  do  not  exclude, 
those  of  the  other.     And  thus  does  the  whole  Blessed  Trinity 

^  Thesaurus,  sec.  5,  vol.  v.  part.  i.  pp.  35,  37. 

^  S.  Cyril  in  Petavius  de  Trin.  vii.  5,  12. 

^  Id.  Thesaurus,  sec.  34,  vol.  v.  part  i.  p.  355,  and  vide  346.  "His 
Spirit  is  inseparable  from  the  Son  by  reason  of  the  unity  of  nature,  al- 
though He  exists  as  a  separate  Person." — Id.  on  St.  John  vi.  64,  vol.  iv. 
p.  378. 


238        CHRIST'S  REAL  PRESENCE  NO  INTERFERENCE 

combine  in  the  merciful  work  of  man's  salvation.  Its  ultimate 
principle  is  the  love  of  the  Everlasting  Father.  It  is  carried 
into  efl'ect  through  the  merciful  condescension  of  the  Eternal 
Son,  who  has  exalted  manhood  by  taking  it  into  God.  In  this 
process  is  the  Holy  Gliost  the  quickening  Agent.  So  He  was 
when  the  Son  took  the  nature  of  man ;  so  He  is  when  men 
particijjate  in  that  new  nature,  which  the  Son  has  bestowed 
upon  manhood.  "  In  the  sacrament  of  our  Incarnation,"  says 
St.  Fulgentius,  "  the  Son  is  said  to  have  been  sent  not  only 
by  the  Father,  but  also  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  because  the  Man 
Christ  Jesus,  the  Mediator  between  God  and  men,  was  formed 
by  the  operation  of  the  whole  Trinity.  But  in  another  sense 
the  Holy  Ghost  is  sent  from  the  Father  and  the  Son,  because 
by  nature  He  proceeds  from  the  Father  and  the  Son.  For  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  sent  from  the  Father  and  the  Son,  when  the 
spiritual  efficacy  of  grace  is  given  by  the  One  God  in  Trinity." ' 
Thus  does  this  wondrous  work  of  love  imply  the  action  of  the 
whole  Godhead,  and  of  every  Person,  without  contrariety  or 
interference.^  And  as  the  functions  of  the  Incarnate  Son  were 
not  excluded,  when  the  Holy  Ghost  was  the  medium  of  His 
material  birth,  so  neither  when  the  same  Spirit  is  the  author 
of  His  Sacramental  presence. 

II.  It  remains  to  show,  in  the  second  place,  that  the  general 
principles  which  have  been  laid  down,  are  confirmed  by  the 
testimony  of  the  ancient  Church.  Now,  whether  we  look  to 
the  public  services,  or  to  individual  writers,  it  will  be  found 
that  they  all  agree  in  attributing  this  consentient  action  to  the 
Second  and  Third  Persons  in  the  glorious  Trinity.  For  the 
two  following  principles  were  universally  accepted :  first,  that 
whatever  was  the  mode  of  presence  in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  the 
Body  present  was  that  glorified  Body  of  Christ,  which  had  been 
born  of  the  Virgin  and  had  suffered  on  the  cross ;  and  that  it 

^  Fragment  of  Eighth  Book  agaiust  Fabianus. 

^  "  Non  tantum  Patris  et  Filii,  seel  Spiritus  Sancti,  sicut  aequalitas  et 
inseparabilitas  personarum,  ita  etiam  opera  iuseparabilia  sunt." — /S.  Aug. 
in  Joan.  Tract,  xx.  3. 


WITH  THE  OFFICE  OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST.  239 

was  present  as  a  consequence  of  the  Incarnation,  and  by  virtue 
of  His  own  gracious  will :  secondly,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  was 
an  agent  in  the  effecting  of  this  presence.  The  first  is  witnessed 
by  the  importance  attached  in  all  ancient  Liturgies  to  the  exact 
repetition  of  the  words  of  Institution.  Thus  was  Our  Lord 
Himself  supposed  to  be  the  real  actor  in  the  celebration  of  this 
Sacrament,  and  the  officiating  Priest  only  to  sjpeak  in  His  name. 
And  repeated  allusions  may  be  found  to  the  belief,  that  the 
Body  bestowed  was  the  real  Body  of  Christ.  Indeed,  whether 
Our  Lord  be  conceived  to  be  present  really,  or  only  in  figure,  we 
have  no  authority  for  supposing  that  His  Body  can  mean  any- 
thing except  His  Body  natural,  which  was  crucified,  and  His 
Body  mystical  the  Church.  St.  Ignatius's  assertion  that  the 
Docetae  would  not  confess  that  the  Holy  Eucharist  was  the 
"  Flesh  of  Our  Saviour  Christ  which  suffered  for  our  sins," ' 
plainly  looks  to  the  former.  So  does  St.  Ambrose's  statement : 
"  this  Body  which  we  form  was  born  of  the  Virgin  : "  '^  and  St. 
Chrysostom's  on  the  Ephesians,  "we  taste  of  that  Body  that 
sitteth  above,  that  is  adored  by  angels,  that  is  next  to  the 
Power  that  is  incorruptible."  ^  And  again :  "  He  who  sits  on 
high  with  the  Father  is  held  at  that  moment  in  the  hands  of  all 
men."  * 

In  no  way,  however,  is  this  truth  more  strongly  brought  out, 
than  when  the  reality  of  the  Eucharistic  blessing  is  grounded 
upon  the  truth  of  Our  Lord's  participation  in  our  nature,  so 
that  the  gift  in  this  Sacrament  is  connected  with  that  of  the 
Incarnation.  "  If  the  "Word  was  truly  made  Flesh,"  says  St. 
Hilary,  "  and  we  truly  receive  the  Word,  who  is  made  Flesh,  in 
the  food  of  Our  Lord's  Body  {ciho  dominico),  how  can  men  say 
that  He  does  not  naturally  remain  in  us,  who  by  being  born  as 
a  man,  has  now  assumed  the  nature  of  a  man,  as  inseparable 
from  Himself? That  which  we  affirm  about  the  natural 

1  Vide  supra,  p.  230. 

-  "Et  hoc  quod  conficimus  corpus  ex  Virgine  est." — De  Mysteriiis, 
ix.  53. 

^  Horn.  iii.  on  Ephes.'^i.  15 — 20.     Oxford  Trans,  vol.  vi.  p.  130. 
••  De  Sacerdotio,  iii.  4.     Vide  also  on  1  Cor.  Horn.  xxiv.  4. 


240        CHRIST'S  REAL  PRESENCE  NO  INTERFERENCE 

verity  of  Christ  in  us,  unless  we  had  learnt  it  from  Him,  would 
be  a  foolish  and  impious  assertion.  For  He  Himself  says,  '  My 
Flesh  is  meat  indeed,  and  My  Blood  is  drink  indeed.  He  who 
eateth  My  Flesh  and  drinketh  My  Blood,  dwelleth  in  Me  and  I 
in  him.'  There  is  no  room  left  to  doubt  the  truth  of  His  Body 
and  Blood."  ^  And  so  St.  Cyril :  "  Because  the  Word  which 
proceeds  from  the  Father  is  naturally  life.  He  hath  made  His 
own  Flesh  life-giving.  In  this  way  has  the  Eucharist  become 
life-giving.  Therefore  Christ  said,  'Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto 
you,  I  am  the  bread  of  life,  which  came  down  from  heaven,  and 
giveth  life  to  the  world.'  And  again:  'the  bread  which  I  will 
give  is  My  Flesh,  which  I  will  give  for  the  life  of  the  world.' 
And  again :  '  He  that  eateth  My  Flesh,  and  drinketh  My  Blood, 
dwelleth  in  Me  and  I  in  him.'  Observe,  then,  that  He  every- 
whei'e  speaks  of  that  Body  of  His,  which  was  born  of  a  woman, 
on  account  of  His  perfect  oneness."  ^ 

These  passages,  like  the  Liturgic  usages  of  the  Church,  show 
a  full  belief  that  the  blessing  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  to  be 
attributed  to  Our  Lord's  own  power  and  presence.  But  not 
less  distinct  are  the  statements  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  an  agent 
in  this  mysterious  transaction.  St.  Cyril  couples  the  action  of 
the  Word  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  together  in  a  passage  a  little 
subsequent  to  that  last  cited.  "  Because  we  cannot  eat  the 
nature  of  Deity,  we  ought  not  therefore  to  suppose  that  the 
sacred  Body  of  Christ  is  common  food.  We  ought  to  know 
that  it  is  the  very  Body  of  the  Word  which  quickeneth  all 
things,  and  since  it  is  the  Body  of  that  which  is  Life,  it  is 
itself  life-giving.  And  therefore  does  it  give  life  to  our  mortal 
bodies,  and  destroys  the  power  of  death.  And  in  like  manner 
does  the  Holy  Spirit  of  Christ  also  quicken  us.  For  it  is  the 
Spirit  that  quickeneth,  according  to  Our  Saviour's  own  words."  * 

But  nowhere  is  the  action  of  the  Blessed  Spirit  in  the  Holy 

'  S.  Hilarii  de  Trinitate,  viii.  13,  14. 

-  S.  Cyril,  Apolog.  adv.  Orientales,  vol.  vi.  p.  192.     Vide  also  S.  Aug. 
on  Pealin  xx.xiii.  Euar.  i.  6. 
^  Id.  p.  iy4. 


WITH  THE  OFFICE  OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST.  241 

Eucharist  so  plainly  declared,  as  in  the  Liturgies  of  the  Church. 
All  ancient  Liturgies,  with  the  single  exception  of  the  Roman, 
invoke  His  merciful  intervention,  and  represent  Him  as  an 
agent  in  the  consecration  of  the  elements.  "  Send  upon  us, 
and  upon  these  proposed  gifts.  Thy  Most  Holy  Ghost,  the  Lord 
and  life-giving ;  .  .  .  .  that  coming  upon  them  with  His  holy, 
and  good,  and  glorious  Presence,  He  may  hallow  and  may  make 
this  bread  the  holy  Body  of  Thy  Christ,  and  this  Cup  the 
precious  Blood  of  Thy  Christ,  that  they  may  be  to  those  who 
partake  of  them  for  remission  of  sins,  and  for  eternal  life,  for 
sanctification  of  soul  and  body,  for  bringing  forth  good  works."  ^ 
This  is  a  sample  of  the  expressions  which  are  to  be  found  in 
every  ancient  Liturgy,  except  that  of  Rome.  Their  absence  in 
this  single  instance  is  remarkable ;  but  the  earliest  forms,  under 
which  the  Roman  Missal  appears,  present  exactly  the  same 
phenomenon.  It  cannot  be  doubted,  however,  that  the  early 
Roman  Church  had  the  same  belief  which  everywhere  existed 
respecting  the  agency  of  God  the  Holy  Ghost  in  this  transaction ; 
and  in  one  of  the  collects  of  St.  Leo's  Ofl&ce,  "  The  virtue  of  the 
Holy  Ghost "  ^  is  especially  referred  to,  as  the  sanctifying 
principle  of  the  Holy  Eucharist.  And  in  the  ancient  canon, 
used  in  the  time  of  Gelasius,  there  occurs  a  prayer  entreating 
God  to  look  favoiu'ably  upon  the  offering,  and  to  accept^  it, 
which  is  equivalent  in  effect  to  the  direct  invocations  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  in  the  other  Liturgies.  For  it  is  through  the  agency  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  that  the  Eternal  Father  especially  bestows  His 
blessings.  It  is  possible  that  the  circumstance  which  led  to  the 
omission  of  all  explicit  mention  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  may  have 
been  the  same  which  accounts  for  the  conciseness  of  the  ancient 
Roman  Creed.     The  absence  of  prevalent  heresies,  says  Ruffinus 

^  S.  James's  Liturgy,  Neale's  Introd.  p.  571. 

^  "Sancti  Spiritus  operante  virtute,  sacrificium  jam  nostrum  Corpus  et 
Sanguis  est  ipsius  sacerdotis." — Murcdoii  Lit.  Rom.  Vet.  vol.  i.  p.  469. 
And  the  prayer  "Veni  Sanctificator  "  in  the  present  Service  is  no  doubt 
an  implicit  recognition  of  the  same  principle. 

*  "  Supra  quae  propitio  ac  sereno  vultu  respicere  digneris,  et  accepta 
referre,"  &c. — Muratori,  Id.  p.  697. 

B 


242   CHEISrS  REAL  PRESENCE  NO  INTERFERENCE 

in  the  fourtli  century,  had  enabled  it  to  dispense  with  various 
statements  which  were  found  necessary  in  other  Churches.^ 
The  disposition  to  deny  the  Deity  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which 
prevailed  so  largely  in  the  East,  may  in  like  manner  have 
suggested  those  direct  invocations  which  occur  in  the  Eastena 
Liturgies,  or  in  such  as  are  derived  from  them.  The  prevalent 
heresy  on  this  subject  was  to  assert  that  as  the  Father  had 
created  the  Son,  so  did  the  Son  in  his  turn  create  the  Holy 
Ghost.  "^  He  was  looked  upon,  therefore,  as  the  Agent  of  the 
Son  by  arbitrary  commission,  not  as  proceeding  from  Him  by 
natural  right.  This  heresy  was  immediately  confronted  by  the 
statement,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  proceeded  from,  and  was  consub- 
stantial  with,  the  Eternal  Father.  It  did  not  follow  from  this 
assertion  that  the  Holy  Ghost  did  not  proceed  from  the  Son 
also ;  but  only  that  His  Procession  from  the  Son  must  likewise 
be  by  necessary  derivation,  and  not  by  arbitrary  appointment. 
And  yet  their  anxiety  to  maintain,  that  the  Third  Person  in 
the  Blessed  Trinity  was  truly  consubstantial  with  the  Eternal 
Father,  may  have  rendered  the  Eastern  Churches  at  once  less 
full  in  their  exjiression  of  the  Double  Procession,  and  more 
explicit  in  asserting  the  intervention  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the 
Holy  Euchai'ist. 

This  difference  between  the  Roman  and  Eastern  Liturgies 
was  little  noticed  till  the  Council  of  Florence.  Nor  was  it  the 
Greeks  who  complained  of  any  deficiency  in  the  Roman  Ritual ; 
but  the  Latins,  who  objected  that  to  introduce  a  subsequent 
invocation  for  the  sanctification  of  the  elements,  implied  that 
the  repetition  of  the  words  of  Institution  was  not  an  adequate 
consecration.     Such  was  the  objection  made  by  Turrecremata  at 

^  After  mentioning  that  additions  had  been  made  to  the  Creed  in  other 
Churches,  he  says,  "  In  ecclesia  tamen  Urbis  Komie  hoc  non  deprehen- 
ditur  factum.  Quod  ego  propterea  esse  arbitror,  quod  neque  ha;resis  ulla 
illic  suiupsit  exordium,  &c.  ...  In  ca'teris  auteui  h)cis,  quantum  iutelligi 
datur,  propter  nonuullos  hitreticos  addita  quidem  videutur  per  quae  no- 
vellnc  doctrinee  sensus  crederetur  excludi." 

"  This  was  varied  by  the  statement  mentioned  by  S.  Athanasius :  "Si 
Spiritua  Sanctus  non  sit  creatura — avus  est  Pater  et  nepos  ejus  est  Spiri- 
tua." — ijx's.  iv.  ad  iSerapion.,  sec.  i.  vol.  i.  part  ii.  p.  (i07. 


WITH  THE  OFFICE  OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST.  213 

Florence,  but  to  which  Pope  Eugenius  and  the  Council  refused 
to  pay  attention.  The  Grreeks  stood  upon  the  ground  that  such 
had  been  always  their  usage,  without  denying  the  validity  of  the 
Latin  custom.  But  various  theories  have  been  since  advanced 
by  the  Latin  writers,  who,  admitting  the  undoubted  antiquity 
of  the  Greek  usage,  have  thought  it  essential  to  show  that  the 
Invocation  was  not  a  substantive  part  of  the  consecration,  inas- 
much as  consecration  must  have  been  previously  effected  by  the 
words  of  Institution.  Some  have  maintained  that  the  Invocation 
should  precede  the  words  of  Institution,  and  that  it  has  only  a 
prospective  force :  but  in  point  of  fact  it  is  found  to  occur 
subsequently  in  ancient  Liturgies.  Others  have  affirmed  the 
Invocation  not  to  refer  to  the  elements,  but  to  the  receiver,  ^ 
and  to  be  equivalent  to  a  prayer  that  he  may  receive  profitably. 
But  this  is  inconsistent  with  the  expressions  employed,  which 
refer  directly  to  the  consecration,  and  in  several  cases  to  the 
change  of  the  elements  themselves.  "Send  down  Thy  Holy 
Ghost  upon  us,  and  on  these  proposed  gifts ;  .  .  .  make  this 
bread  the  precious  Body  of  Thy  Christ,  .  .  .  and  that  which  is 
in  this  cup  the  jDrecious  Blood  of  Thy  Christ,  .  .  .  changing 
them  by  Thy  Holy  Ghost."  ' 

The  difficulty  before  us,  then,  arises  out  of  the  fact  that  our 
conceptions  on  this  subject  are  derived  in  great  measure  from 
the  practices  of  the  early  Church ;  and  that  in  this  case  the 
usages  of  the  two  great  branches  of  the  Church  were  different. 
It  may  somewhat  abate,  perhaps,  if  it  does  not  altogether  re- 
move, our  perplexity,  to  consider  that  we  have  to  do  with  the 
operations  of  the  Eternal  Persons  of  the  Ever-blessed  Trinity, 
whose  actions,  therefore,  are  in  themselves  independent  of  time ; 
though  in  time  only  can  we  think  and  speak  of  them.  So  that 
this  is  a  case  to  which  we  can  apply  the  rule  of  Aquinas,  "  plus 
Deus  valet  operari,  quam  homo  intelligere  potest."  The  succes- 
sion, which  attaches  to  our  view  of  their  actions,  has  no  place 

^  This  is  argued  by  De  Lugo  de  Eucharistia. — Disp.  xi.  sec.  1. 
"^  S.  Chrysostom's  Liturgy :    Gear's  Eucliologion,  p.  77.     Neale's  Intro- 
duction, p.  578. 

£  2 


k 


•244        CHRIST'S  REAL  PRESENCE  NO  INTERFERENCE 

in  reference  to  those  actions  themselves.  And  so  completely 
does  each  co-operate  in  that  which  either  performs,  that  we 
cannot  exclude  the  Holy  Ghost  from  that  action  which  is  per- 
formed by  the  Son  through  the  medium  of  His  Priests,  nor  yet 
the  Son  from  that  which  is  effected  by  the  Holy  Ghost  who  pro- 
ceeds from  Him.  So  that  it  would  be  rash  perhaps  to  define  at 
what  moment  the  act  of  consecration  is  effected,  while  yet  it 
is  reverent  to  treat  it  as  effected  when  the  first  essential 
portion  of  it  is  perfoi'med.  Again,  it  may  be  said  that  since 
Our  Lord's  Presence  in  this  Holy  oi'dinance  is  not  of  a  natural 
or  carnal  character,  the  continual  agency  of  the  Spirit  is  no 
doubt  requii'ed  to  perpetuate  that  operation,  on  which  Christ's 
Presence  is  dejDendent.  As  we  daily  ask  God,  therefore,  to  send 
do\\Ti  His  "  mercy  and  truth,"  without  meaning  that  similar 
prayers  may  not  have  been  already  heard,  so  we  may  invoke 
the  power  of  the  Spirit  for  the  maintenance  of  that  presence, 
which  is  already  bestowed.  So  that  the  Invocation  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  may  be  designed  to  imply,  that  the  continuance  of  Our 
Lord's  Presence  is  a  sujjernatural  action  momentarily  renewed. 

That  which  is  clear,  however,  is,  that  the  use  of  these  two 
separate  conditions  in  the  consecration  of  the  Holy  Eucharist, 
is  founded  upon  a  reference  to  the  intervention  of  the  Second, 
as  well  as  of  the  Third  Person  in  the  Blessed  Trinity,  m  this 
mysterious  work ;  and  that  the  work  is  attributed  to  their  joint 
operation.  Each  is  supposed  to  act  according  to  His  peculiar 
function  in  the  great  Economy  of  man's  redemption :  the  Holy 
Ghost  as  having  been  the  Agent  in  the  work  of  the  Incarnation  ; 
the  Son  as  having  Himself  become  Incarnate.  The  same  autho- 
rities, therefore,  who  refer  the  consecration  to  the  Holy  Ghost, 
consider  it  to  be  effected  by  Our  Lord's  words  of  Institution. 
St.  Clirysostom,'  whose   Liturgy  so  plainly  expresses  the  one, 

'  S.  Clirys.  In  Matth.  Horn.  Ixxxii.  sec.  5,  vol.  vii.  p.  789.  Id  iu  II.  Epist. 
ad  Tim.  cap.  i.  Horn.  ii.  sec.  4,  vol.  xi.  p.  671.  Vide  also  Horn.  i.  de  Pro- 
ditione  Juda;.  (i,  vol.  ii.  p.  384,  and  lb.  ii.  6,  p.  394.  Nilu.s,  a  disciple 
of  S.  C'lirysostoni,  refers  the  consecration  in  a  remarkable  passage  to  the 
.Invocation  and  the  Descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost. — E^.  xliv. 


WITH  THE  OFFICE  OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST.  245 

speaks  as  distinctly  in  his  homilies  respecting  the  other.  St.  Au- 
gustine ^  attributes  it  with  equal  distinctness  to  the  one  and  to 
the  other.  And  for  this  diversity  the  ancient  writers  found  a  pa- 
rallel in  that  great  work  on  which  it  was  dependent.  For  the  In- 
carnation itself  is  attributed  in  Holy  Scripture  to  the  one  of  these 
Divine  Persons  as  directly  as  to  the  other.^  God  the  Son  "  made 
Himself  of  no  reputation,  and  took  upon  Him  the  form  of  a  servant." 
Thus  did  "  wisdom  build  itself  a  house  "  out  of  the  materials  of 
man's  nature.  And  yet  the  angel  declared,  "  the  Holy  Ghost 
shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the  power  of  the  Highest  shall  over- 
shadow thee."  "  When,"  says  St.  Fulgentius,  "  can  the  Holy 
Church  more  fitly  entreat  the  advent  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  than 
when  she  invokes  it  to  consecrate  the  sacrifice  of  Christ's  Body, 
seeing  she  knows  that  it  was  from  the  Holy  Ghost  that  her 
Head  Himself  received  His  Incarnate  nature." '  For  thus  is  it 
revealed  to  us  as  part  of  the  mystery  of  the  Ever-blessed  Tri- 
nity, that  by  reason  of  the  coiuherence  of  the  Divine  Three,  no 
function  can  be  discharged  by  one  Person  in  the  glorious  God- 
head, in  which  each  does  not  take  part  according  to  His  ap- 
pointed order  and  law.  And  hence  results  no  confusion  nor 
interference  in  their  merciful  offices :  neither  can  succession 
have  place  in  essences  which  perjietually  co-operate ;  nor  can 
the  conditions  of  time  restrict  the  operations  of  the  Eternal. 

^  "Panis  ille,  quem  videtis  in  altari,  sanctificatus  per  verbum  Dei,  cor- 
pus est  Christi ;  Calix  ille,  immo  quod  habet  calix,  sanctificatum  per  ver- 
hum  Dei,  sanguis  est  Christi." — Sermo  ccxxvii.  So  in  Sermo  iii.  and  vi. 
oi Sermones  S.  Aug.  inediti,  ed.  Denis.  1792  :  "Hoc  quod  videtis  in  mensa 
domini,  panis  est  et  vinum,  sed  iste  panis  et  hoc  vinum  accedente  verbo  fit 
corpus  et  sanguis  Verbi."  But  in  his  work  De  Trinitate,  S.  Augustin 
refers  the  consecration  of  the  elements  to  the  Holy  Ghost.  "Non  sancti- 
ficatur  ut  sit  tarn  magnum  sacramentum,  nisi  operante  invisibiliter  spiritu 
Dei." — De  Trinitate,  iii.  10.     Vide  also  S.  Ansehn.  Oiatio.  29. 

^  Vide  S.  Cyril  in  Joan.  lib.  iv.  3,  vol.  iv.  p.  366. 

3  Ad  Monimum,  lib.  ii.  cap.  10.     Bib.  Pat.  vol.  ix.  p.  29. 


246 


CHAPTER  XL 

THE   HOLY   EUCHARIST   REGARDED   AS   A    SACRIFICE. 

It  has  been  stated,  firbt,  that  the  characteristic  circumstance 
in  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  the  consecration  of  the  elements; 
secondly,  that  the  gift  bestowed  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  Christ 
Himself;  thirdly,  in  what  manner  Christ  is  present.  Again, 
that  He  is  not  only  supernaturally  and  sacramentally,  but  really 
present,  has  been  proved  by  the  authority  of  Holy  Scripture, 
and  by  the  testimony  of  the  early  Church.  It  remains  to  notice 
a  particular  of  great  importance,  which  grows  out  of  the  truth 
of  Christ's  real  Presence,  i.e.,  that  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  a  sacri- 
fice as  well  as  a  sacrament.  This  fact  is  a  corroboration  of  the 
reality  of  Christ's  Presence,  as  showing  one  purpose  which  His 
Presence  is  ordained  to  answer  in  the  economy  of  grace ;  while 
it  will  be  found  to  have  its  own  origin  in  the  principle  which  it 
illustrates. 

It  was  laid  down  as  the  characteristic  of  sacraments,  that 
they  consist  of  an  external  sign,  and  of  an  inward  reality.  In 
the  Holy  Eucharist  this  inward  reality  is  the  Body  and  Blood 
of  Christ.  Let  the  Presence  of  this  inward  part  be  admitted, 
and  it  is  obvious  that  there  is  something  in  the  sacrament  which 
we  can  present  to  God.  Whereas,  if  the  Zuiuglian  hypothesis 
be  adopted,  there  is  nothing  to  offer  in  the  Holy  Eucharist ; 
since  it  consists  of  nothing  but  an  empty  sign,  which  cannot 
seriously  be  looked  upon  as  a  becoming  oifering  under  the  Chris- 
tian Dispensation.  And  the  same  may  be  said  of  the  Calvinistic 
system  also,  since  it  detaches  the  inward  reality  from  the  out- 
ward sign,  and  supposes  that  the  last  only  is  really  present  in 
the  Holy  Eucharist.  So  that  neither  of  these  systems  afford  a 
substratum  for  the  doctrine  of  the  Eucharistic  Sacrifice:  it  can 


THE  HOLY  EUCHAEIST  EEGAEDED  AS  A  SACRIFICE.  2i7 

only  ally  itself  with  a  system  which  supposes  that  the  Holy 
Eucharist  consists  of  a  res  sacramenti  as  well  as  a  sacramenhim ; 
it  needs  the  doctrine  of  the  Beal  Presence  as  the  basis  on  which 
it  is  to  be  built ;  while,  again,  nothing  more  strongly  illustrates 
the  reality  of  this  Presence,  than  the  importance  which  has 
uniformly  been  ascribed  to  the  Eucharistic  Sacrifice  by  the 
Church. 

But  why  has  so  much  importance  been  attached  to  the  Eu- 
charistic Sacrifice,  and  what  right  have  we  to  speak  of  it  under 
this  name  ?  These  tyvo  points  shall  be  considered  in  their  oi^der. 

The  importance  of  the  Eucharistic  Sacrifice  depends  upon  the 
fact  that  our  acceptance  is  owing  exclusively  to  the  merits  of 
Christ,  and  that  His  Mediation  extends  to  all  the  relations 
between  the  Almighty  and  His  redeemed  creatures.  Being  the 
"  One  Mediator  between  God  and  men,"  He  not  only  merits  par- 
don, but  applies  it.  The  acceptance  which  He  has  purchased, 
has  sometimes  been  spoken  of  as  though  it  were  a  store,  out  of 
which  men  might  help  themselves  by  their  voluntary  efforts  : 
but  this  is  to  pervert  His  work,  and  to  undervalue  His  office : 
He  must  Himself  become  "  our  peace ; "  the  purpose  of  the 
Almighty  is  "to  gather  together  in  one  all  things  in  Christ." 
And  for  this  purpose  He  must  act  on  man's  behalf  towards  God, 
as  well  as  on  God's  part  towards  His  creatures ;  it  is  through 
Him  alone  that  "  we  have  access  with  confidence  "  to  God ;  He 
is  our  "  great  High  Priest,"  and  we  have  "  boldness  to  enter 
into  the  holiest,"  through  that  "new  and  living  way  which  He 
hath  consecrated  for  us  through  the  veil,  that  is,  His  Flesh." 
Now  it  is  in  the  ordinances  of  His  Church  that  this  right  of 
access  has  been  bestowed  upon  mankind ;  "  He  is  the  Saviour  of 
the  Body;"  all  private  addresses  are  rendered  acceptable  through 
those  public  relations  which  bind  men  to  the  Body  of  Christ : 
thus  do  they  become  "  fellow-citizens  with  the  saints,  and  of  the 
household  of  God."  So  that  the  acceptance  which  Christ  has 
purchased  by  His  death,  is  rendered  available  through  all  those 
acts  of  public  service,  whereby  He  puts  men  into  relation  with 
God ;  and  of  these  acts  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  the  chief — because 


248  THE  HOLY  EUCHARIST 

it  is  the  crown  of  public  worship ;  the  bond,  whereby  men  are 
attached  to  Christ ;  the  focus,  in  which  all  Church  ordinances 
culminate. 

But  allowing  that  the  Eucharistic  service  is  important,  be- 
cause admitted  to  be  the  chief  act  of  Christian  worship,  yet  why 
is  it  called  the  Christian  sacrifice  V  If  the  term  is  only  applied 
in  a  general  and  metaphorical  manner,  every  act  of  worship  may 
be  styled  a  sacrifice.  If  it  be  used  with  more  reality  and  exact- 
ness, how  does  its  emplopnent  consist  with  those  statements  of 
Scripture,  wliich  exclude  all  true  sacrifices,  except  the  offering 
of  Christ  ?  Now  what  is  meant  in  Scripture  by  an  ofi'ering  or 
sacrifice  ?  In  a  strict  sense  it  is  something  brought  before  God, 
and  presented  to  Him  with  a  view  of  obtaining  His  favour. 
Tliis  is  the  etymological  sense  of  the  word  offering  ;  and  sacri- 
fice, which  is  often  used  as  its  equivalent,  involves,  in  common, 
the  further  idea  of  the  slaughter  of  that  which  is  offered.  Now, 
in  this  full  sense,  there  is  no  other  sacrifice  or  offering  which 
can  be  brought  before  God,  except  that  Body  ^  of  Jesus  Christ 
Our  Lord,  with  which  He  paid  the  price  of  our  salvation.  This 
true  victim  complied  with  eveiy  condition  by  which  a  sacrifice 
is  characterized,  that  it  might  be  presented  before  God  as  the 
perpetual  ground  of  man's  acceptance.  "  Christ  is  not  entered 
into  the  lioly  places  made  with  hands,  which  are  the  figures  of 
the  true,  but  into  heaven  itself,  now  to  appear  in  the  presence 
Df  God  for  us."  For  it  was  not  only  in  the  moment  of  His 
death  that  Our  Lord's  Body  was  the  sacrifice  for  man :  the 
shedding  of  His  Blood  was  the  consecration  of  the  victim :  but 
the  victim  itself  was  set  apart  as  the  undying,  propitiation  for 
sinners.  So  is  it  described  by  St.  Jolui,  who  beheld  a  "  Lamb 
as  it  had  been  slain,"  in  the  heavenly  courts :  so  is  it  explained 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  whore  we  read  that  Christ  has 
"  off'ered  one  2>er])etiuil  sacrifice  for  sins."  ^ 

^  "  Manus  sacerdotum  nostronim  vacure  essent,  si  non  illas  veneranda 
ilia,  et  sancta  oblatio  vivifici  corporis  et  sanguinis  impleret." — Guliel- 
Paris.  J)e  Sac.  Each.  cap.  v.  p.  427. 

*  Hebrews  x.  12.  Ova'iav  fU  ru  diTjvdtis.  Hebrews  ix.  12,  andx.  10,  26, 
have  been  alleged,  singularly  enough,  to  be  unfavourable  to  the  doctrine 


EEGAEDED  AS  A  SACRIFICE.  249 

If  the  Holy  Eucharist,  therefore,  is  to  be  called  in  any 
peculiar  manner  the  Christian  Sacrifice,  it  can  only  be  by 
reference  to  that  one  perfect  propitiation  upon  the  cross,  by 
virtue  of  which  we  have  in  heaven  an  abiding  sacrifice.  And 
hence  it  is,  that  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  discriminated  from  all 
other  acts  of  common  worship.  For  it  is  by  this  service  only 
that  the  real  intercession  which  is  transacted  in  the  Church's 
higher  courts,  is  identified  with  the  worship  of  its  earthly 
members.  If  it  w^ere  the  sacramentwm  only,  or  external  sign, 
which  was  presented  before  God  in  this  service,  it  could  have  no 
greater  value  than  pertains  to  the  corruptible  productions  of 
this  lower  world  :  but  since  it  is  also  the  res  sacramenti.,  or 
thing  signified,  it  is  that  very  sacrifice  which  Our  Lord  has 
rendered  perfect  by  the  taking  it  into  Grodhead,  and  available 
by  offering  it  upon  the  cross.  And  again,  if  this  oblation  were 
presented  merely  by  an  earthly  priest,  we  might  doubt  whether 
his  own  sins  did  not  impede  his  actions,  but  it  is  the  peculiarity 
of  this  service,  that  those  wdio  minister  it  here  below  are  only 
representatives  of  Him  by  whom  it  is  truly  offered :  He  speaks 
through  their  voice ;  they  act  by  His  power :  so  that  the 
Church's  offering  finds  a  fitting  minister  in  that  Great  High 
Priest,  who  sacrifices  in  heaven.  The  Holy  Eucharist,  therefore, 
is  fitly  called  the  Christian  Sacrifice,  not  only  because  it  is  the 
chief  rite  of  common  worship,  but  because  it  is  the  peculiar  act, 
wherein  the  effectual  intercession  which  is  exercised  in  heaven 
by  the  Church's  Head,  reaches  down  to  this  lower  sphere  of  our 
earthly  service.  It  is  no  repetition  of  the  sacrifice  of  the  cross, 
nor  any  substitution  of  another  victim,  "  for  although  once  for 
all  offered,  that  sacrifice,  be  it  remembered,  is  ever  living  and 
continuous — made  to  be  continuous  by  the  resurrection  of  Our 
Lord.^"     When  those  who  have  been  admitted  to  the  fruition 

of  the  Eucharistic  Sacrifice.  Their  object,  however,  is  to  assert,  against 
the  Jews,  that  there  can  be  no  real  sacrifice  except  that  of  Christ ;  so  that 
they  accord  entirely  with  the  assertion,  that  the  Sacrifice  which  is  per- 
petually presented  upon  the  Altar,  is  identical  with  that  which  was  once 
offered  upon  the  Cross. 

^  A  Pastoral  Letter,  by  Henry,  Bishop  of  Exeter,  1851,  p.  54. 


250  THE  HOLY  ETJCHAEIST 

of  tlie  Divine  Presence  fall  down  before  Him  that  sitteth  upon 
the  throne,  it  is  still  "  the  Lamb  that  was  slain,"  to  whose  virtue 
they  ascribe  their  acceptance ;  and  "  to  Him  His  Church  on 
eartli  in  the  Eucharlstic  service,  in  like  manner,  continually 
cries,  '  0  Lord  God,  Lamb  of  ""od,  Son  of  the  Father,  that 
takest  away  the  sins  of  the  world.  Not  that  tookest  away,  but 
still  takest ;  'Agnus  Dei,  qui  tollis  peccata  mundi.'"^  "Let  us 
weigh  well,"  says  St.  Gregory,  "  how  valuable  to  us  is  this 
sacrifice,  whereby  the  passion  of  the  onlj--bcgottcn  Son  is 
perpetually  imitated  for  our  acquittal.  For  what  faithful  man 
can  doubt  that,  at  the  very  moment  when  it  is  offered,  at  the 
priest's  voice  the  heavens  are  opened — that  the  angelic  choirs  are 
attendant  on  that  mystery  of  Jesus  Christ — that  things  above 
and  things  below,  things  in  heaven  and  things  on  earth,  are 
united,  and  that  the  visible  is  identified  with  the  invisible."'^ 

Such  is  the  principle  upon  which  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  called 
a  sacrifice.  It  rests  upon  the  necessity  of  Our  Lord's  Inter- 
cession :  upon  the  truth  that  the  Church's  services  cannot  be 
effectual,  unless  they  are  presented  by  its  Head :  that  His 
intervention  is  essential,  not  only  because  He  communicates 
grace  to  His  members,  but  because  His  members  cannot  be 
accepted  save  through  the  sacrifice  of  Himself.  Now  that  accept- 
ance, which  He  purchased  through  the  sacrifice  of  the  cross.  He 
applies  through  the  sacrifice  of  the  Altar.  "  Therefore  this  is  no 
new  sacrifice,"  says  Bishop  Cosin,  "  but  the  same  which  v  as 
once  offered,  and  which  is  every  day  offered  to  God  by  Christ 
in  heaven,  and  continueth  here  still  on  earth,  by  a  mystical 
repi'esentation  of  it  in  the  Eucharist.  And  the  Church  uiteuds 
not  to  have  any  new  propitiation,  or  new  remission  of  sins 
obtained ;  but  tp  make  that  effectual,  and  in  act  applied  unto 
us,  which  was  once  obtained  by  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  upon  the 
cross.  Neither  is  the  sacrifice  of  the  cross,  as  it  was  once 
offered  up  thei*e,  modo  cruento,  so  much  remembered  in  the 
Eucharist,  though  it  be  commemorated,  as  regard  is  had  to  the 

'  A  Pastoral  Letter,  by  Henry,  Bisliop  of  Exeter,  1851,  p.  54. 
-  Gregorii  Magui  Dialog,  lib.  iv.  c.  5b. 


EEGARDED  AS  A  SACRIFICE.  251 

perpetual  and  daily  offering  of  it  by  Christ  now  in  heaven  in 
His  everlasting  Priesthood ;  and  thereupon  was,  and  should  be 
still,  the  juge  sacrificium  observed  here  on  earth,  as  it  is  in 
heaven,  the  reason  which  the  ancient  Fathers  had  for  their  daily 
sacrifice." — St.  Chry.  in  10  Heh.  .  .  St.  Aug.  de  Civ.  Dei,  x.  20.^ 

For  this  view  of  Our  Lord's  office  towards  His  Church,  we 
have  the  authority  of  Holy  Scripture.  For  we  read  that  Our 
Lord  is  "  a  minister  of  the  sanctuary,"  because  He  is  "  consecrated 
for  evermore  "  to  "  an  unchangeable  priesthood."  Now  a  priest- 
hood implies  a  sacrifice.  Unless  there  be  a  sacrifice  to  offer  up, 
how  can  there  be  a  minister  to  offer  it  ?  AVhat,  then,  is  the 
nature  of  Our  Lord's  Priesthood  ?  He  is  a  Priest  for  ever  after 
the  order  of  Melchisedec.  Now  we  learn  from  Holy  Scripture 
what  was  the  nature  of  Melchisedec's  sacrifice.^  He  "  brought 
forth  bread  and  wine,  and  he  was  the  priest  of  the  Most  High 
Grod."  And  we  know  when  Our  Lord  was  consecrated  to  the 
like  office :  in  that  momentous  night  when  the  last  Passover 
marked  the  close  of  the  ancient  Dispensation.  Then  did 
the  true  Melchisedec  bring  forth  bread  and  wine  :  but 
we  may  not  suppose  that  these  were  the  realities  which  He 
offered :  they  were  but  the  sacramentum  or  external  sign — the 
real  offering  was  the  thing  signified.  He  had  Himself  predicted 
the  nature  of  the  sacrifice :  "  the  bread  that  I  will  give  is  My 
Flesh,  which  I  will  give  for  the  life  of  the  world."  And  there- 
fore when  the  moment  was  come,  at  which  the  course  of  Aaron 
was  to  give  place  to  the  course  of  Melchisedec  ;  "  He  took  bread 
and  gave  thanks,  and  brake  it  and  gave  unto  them,  saying. 
This  is  My  Body  which  is  given  for  you  :  this  do  in  remembrance 
of  Me.  Likewise  also  the  cup  after  supper,  saying,  This  cup  is 
the  New  Testament  in  My  Blood,  which  is  shed  for  you." 

It  was  thus  that  Our  Lord  initiated  that  Priesthood  of 
Melchisedec,  which  His  Apostles  were  ordained  to  perpetuate. 

^  Nicholls's  Add.  Notes  to  the  Common  Prayer,  p.  46.  He  refers  to 
Bishop  Overall,  but  the  original  is  in  the  handwriting  of  Bishop  Cosin, 
and  appears  to  be  a  quotation  in  part  fi-om  Cassander's  Cohsultatio. 

-  "  Ibi  primum  apparuit  sacrificium,  quod  nunc  a  Christianis  offertur 
Deo  toto  orbe  terrarum." — S.  Aug.  de  Civ.  Dei,  xvi.  22. 


252  THE  HOLY  EUCHARIST 

For  "as  often  as  ye  eat  this  Bread  and  drink  this  Cup,  ye 
do  sliow  the  Lord's  death  till  He  come."  The  offering  of 
Himself  in  the  chamber  had  been  a  step  in  that  sacrificial 
M'ork,  which  was  consummated  upon  the  Cross  by  the  hands 
of  others :  the  offering  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  performed 
by  the  hands  of  His  ministers,  but  its  mystical  efficacy  is  per- 
petually consummated  by  Himself.  Thus  is  that  sacrifice  ef- 
fected which  was  predicted  as  the  service  of  the  Gentile  Church: 
"  in  every  place  incense  shall  be  offered  unto  My  Name,  and 
a  pure  offering."  Incense,  as  we  read  in  the  Book  of  B,evela- 
tion,  is  the  type  of  Praj'^er,  and  the  parity  of  expression  com- 
pels us  to  suppose  that  the  pure  offering  must  have  its  antitype 
also.  Now  what  can  this  be,  but  that  res  sacramenti,  or  reality, 
of  which  the  bread  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  the  channel  and 
type?  The  "Breaking  of  Bread,"  therefore,  was  joined  with 
prayer  in  the  daily  ritual  of  the  first  disciples,  and  this  pro- 
bably was  the  Liturgy  which  was  celebrated  at  Antioch,  when 
St.  Paul  was  called  to  the  office  of  an  Apostle.  Now,  wherein 
would  this  service  have  been  superior  to  the  Jewish  meat- 
offerings, unless  it  had  been  the  reality,  of  which  the  ancient 
sacrifices  were  a  typical  representation  ?  Yet  such  is  the  view 
always  taken  by  the  Apostles  respecting  the  relation  between 
the  Jewish  law  and  the  Christian  ritual :  they  represent  the 
law  as  the  shadow,  which  had  its  reality  in  that  "perpetual 
sacrifice  for  sins,"  "  the  offering  of  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ 
once  for  all."^  And  in  this  comparison  the  Eucharistic  sacri- 
fice is  rejiresented  as  bearing  its  part.  St.  Paul  contrasts  the 
Christian  Eucharist  as  well  with  the  sacrifices  of  the  Jewish 
Law,  as  with  the  sacrificial  rites  of  the  heathen.  He  not  only 
says,  "  ye  cannot  be  partakers  of  the  Lord's  table,  and  of  the 
table  of  devils;"  but  "behold  Israel  after  the  flesh:  are  not 
they  which  eat  of  the  sacrifices  partakers  of  the  altar  ?"  So 
that  he  parallels  the  daily  offerings  of  the  Law  with  the 
Church's  perpetual  celebration  of  the  Holy  Eucharist. 

Yet  the  arrangements  of  the  Jewish   Law  have   sometimes 
1  Heb.  X.  10,  12. 


EEGAEDED  AS  A  SACEIFICE.  25'c 

been  adduced  as  furnishing  an  argument  against  the  Eucharistic 
Sacrifice.  In  the  Law  there  were  two  main  offerings ;  the 
offering  of  fine  flour,  and  that  of  animals.  The  former  of 
these,  it  is  said,  was  a  simple  expression  of  thanks :  the  work 
of  expiation  was  confined  to  the  latter.  Now,  since  the  Holy 
Eucharist  has  been  formed  out  of  the  meat-offering,  or  offering 
of  flour,  it  can  be  nothing  but  a  testimony  of  thanks ;  the 
sin-offering  can  find  its  antitype  only  in  that  oblation  of  Him- 
self upon  the  cross,  whereby  Our  Lord  paid  the  price  of 
our  redemption.  Such  is  the  objection :  it  shall  be  shown 
in  reply,  first,  that  it  is  incorrect  to  say  that  the  offering 
of  flour  was  limited  to  the  expression  of  thanks ;  secondly, 
that  there  is  direct  Scriptural  authority  for  asserting  the 
Holy  Eucharist  to  correspond  to  the  Jewish  sin-offering. 

First— The  offering  of  flour  was  so  far  from  being  limited 
to  the  expression  of  thanks,  that  in  all  probability  it  was 
the  most  common  form  in  which  the  sin-offering  was  pre- 
sented. For  the  poor  always  outnumber  the  rich ;  now  it 
was  ordered  that  when  a  man's  means  did  not  enable  him 
to  provide  an  animal,  "  then  he  that  sinned  shall  bring  for 
his  offering  the  tenth  part  of  an  ephah  of  fine  flour  for  a 
sin-offering."^  It  is  incorrect,  then,  to  say  that  the  sacri- 
fice of  Melchisedec  must,  from  its  very  constitution,  have 
shown  the  Jews  that  it  was  not  a  sin-offering. 
'  Secondly — But  is  there  any  Scriptm'al  testimony  that  it 
was  a  sin-offering?  Such  a  statement  we  should  expect,  if 
anywhere,  in  that  portion  of  Holy  Scripture,  in  which  the 
Christian  Jews,  upon  their  exclusion  from  the  Temple,  were 
taught  that  all  its  rites  had  their  accomplishment  in  Christ. 
Such  was  the  purpose  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews — a 
purpose  which  distinguishes  it  from  the  Epistles  to  Heathen 
converts  at  Rome  or  in  Galatia.  To  these  last  St.  Paul 
wished  to  prove  that  it  was  needless  to  conform  to  the  Jewish 
Law,  because  the  sole  means  of  acceptance  with  God  lay 
through  the  Faith  of  Christ.  He  had  no  occasion,  there- 
'  Leviticus  v.  11. 


254  THE  HOLY  EUCHARIST 

fore,  to  enter  into  the  details  of  the  Jewish  Law,  because 
his  object  was  to  show  that  the  death  of  Christ  rendered 
the  whole  of  it  superfluous. 

And  yet  St.  Paul  himself,  as  well  as  his  Christian  country- 
men, coutiiiued  to  observe  their  ancient  customs ;  and  we  read 
that  they  were  "all  zealous  of  the  law."  Neither  was  its 
abandonment  their  own  act,  but  was  forced  upon  them  by 
their  unconverted  countrjTuen.  To  console  them  for  this  de- 
pi'ivation  was  the  purpose  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 
Its  whole  tenor  shows  that  it  was  addressed  to  those  who 
were  just  excluded  from  the  home,  which  had  hitherto  been 
provided  for  them  by  their  national  ritual ;  and  were  thus 
compelled  either  to  abandon  Christ,  or  to  "  go  forth  unto 
Him  without  the  camp,  bearing  His  reproach."  And  now, 
therefore,  we  find  a  special  enumeration  of  the  i  articulars 
of  Jewish  service,  and  a  proof  that  all  of  them  had  their 
accomplishment  in  the  Christian  Covenant.  And  we  find  them 
summed  up  by  reference  to  that  new  communion,  which  was 
to  compensate  for  exclusion  from  the  continual  sacrifices  of 
the  ancient  Temple.  "  We  have  an  altar,  whereof  they  have 
no  right  to  eat  which  serve  the  Tabernacle."  Though  this 
passage  was  supposed  in  early  times,  as  its  terms  would  natu- 
rally imply,  to  refer  to  the  Holy  Eucharist,  j'et  it  has  since 
received  other  interjiretations.  The  altar  has  been  supposed 
to  mean  exclusively  Our  Lord's  Cross,  or  His  intercession  m 
heaven,  and  not  to  include  that  earthly  service,  whereby  men 
participate  in  the  offering  which  was  consummated  by  Our 
Lord's  death,  and  which  is  perpetuated  by  His  continual  intei'- 
cession.  But  this  ex]>lanation  is  inconsistent  with  the  jmssage 
itself,  as  well  as  with  the  ancient  intei-preters.  Those  "  who 
serve  the  Tabernacle"  may  be  thought  to  mean  all  Jews ;  though 
the  words  express  more  properly  all  Jewish  priests.  Now 
it  would  have  been  inconsistent  with  the  principles  of  this 
Epistle  to  say  abstractedly  of  all  such  persons  that  they 
could  not  profit  by  the  death  of  Christ.  Till  that  very  period 
Christians  had  continued  to  participate  in  Jewish  rites,  and 


EEGAKDED  AS  A  SACRIFICE.  255 

even  to  act  as  priests;  neither  was  there  as  yet  any  law  of 
the  Church,  ^  which  precluded  them  from  reassuming  such 
functions,  supposing  opportunity  should  be  afforded  them.  How, 
then,  could  it  be  affirmed  in  general  that  those  who  were  Jews 
could  have  no  hope  in  Christ,  without  tliS  addition  of  some 
reason  for  the  sentence,  or  without  some  limitation  of  -it  to 
those  who  abandoned  the  Gosj)el  ? 

Instead,  however,  of  the  introduction  of  any  such  limitation, 
we  find  a  reason  assigned,  which  is  not  based  upon  the  neces- 
sity, so  recently  imposed,  of  choosing  between  the  Old  and 
the  New  Covenant,  but  upon  certain  peculiarities  in  the 
ancient  Jewish  worship.  "  We  have  an  altar,  whereof  they 
have  no  right  to  eat,  which  serve  the  Tabernacle.  For  the 
bodies  of  those  beasts,  whose  blood  is  brought  into  the  Sanc- 
tuary by  the  high  priest  for  sin,  are  burned  without  the  camp." 
If  this  passage  had  meant  nothing  more  than  the  obvious  truth, 
that  men  could  not  claim  to  profit  by  Christ's  actions,  unless 
they  were  members  of  His  Church,  why  should  the  ground 
of  exclusion  be  sought  among  the  specialties  of  the  elder 
Covenant  ?  The  argument  plainly  is  that  the  sacrifice,  by 
which  the  Christian  altar  was  foreshadowed,  was  one  which 
might  not  be  eaten,  according  to  Jewish  usage,  by  those  who 
served  the  Tabernacle.  So  that  the  case  referred  to  cannot 
be  determined  without  reference  to  Jewish  observances.  And 
it  will  be  found  to  depend  upon  a  distinction  which  has 
often  been  overlooked,  between  the  two  kinds  of  sin-ofi"ering. 

The  Jewish  sacrifices  resolve  themselves  into  two  main 
divisions :  ^  on  the  one  hand,  the  Burnt-offerings,  which  were 
the  expression  of  piety  at  large,  and  were  borrowed  from 
Patriarchal  usage ;  on  the  other,  those  sj^ecific  rites,  which 
were  first  enjoined  through  Moses.  hese  last  were  of  two 
kinds,  Peace-Offerings  and  Sin-Offerings.     Under  the  first  of 

^  At  a  later  period  the  Church  adjudged  such  conformity  to  the  Jewish 
Law  not  only  to  be  superfluous,  but  criminal :  " paulatim  fervente  sana 
prxdicatioHe  graiiee  Christi." — S.  Aug.  Ep.  Ixxxii.  15. 

^  The  Legal   Sacrifices,  considered  according  to  their  material,  con- 


256 


THE  HOLY  EUCHARIST 


them  may  be  classed  thauk-offerings,  vows,  and  freewill-offer- 
ings. The  other — Sin-offeruigs — have  commonly  been  dealt 
with  as  if  they  were  homogeneous:  but  they  may  be  divided 
into  two  classes,  of  \yl\[i:n  the  first  was  thai  in  which  the 
priest  acted  as  .2,  -proper  intercessor,'  and  in  which  the  blood 
^^  J.i're  victim  was  smeared  or  sprinkled  upon  the  altar  of 
'■ournt-offerings.  The  Sin-Offerings  of  this  first  sort  were  almost 
identical  with  the  Trespass-Offerings — perhaps  the  Sin-Offeririg 
may  have  referred  rather  to  the  religious,  the  Trespass-Offer- 
ing -  to  the  civil,  aspect  of  offences.  The  other  class  of  sin-of- 
ferings^ was  that  in  which  the  priest  could  not  act  as  a  proper 


sisted  of  animals,  meat,  wine,  and  incense :   considered  according  to  their 
form,  they  may  be  an-anged  in  the  following  manner  : — 


Pecu 

Sacrifices. 
1 

liar  to  Law. 
1 

Not 

pec 
imt 

uliar  to  Law. 
1 

Peace-Ofierings. 
1 

1          Bi 

Sin-Offerings. 

-Offerings. 

1 
Thanks- 
giving. 

1 
Vow. 

Lessi 
com) 

1 
Freewill- 
Offerings. 

When  Priest 

a  proper 

Intercessor. 

1 

\Mien  Priest 

not  a  proper 

Intercessor. 

1 

1                                     1 
er  Sin-Offering,            Trespass- 
nonly  so  called.           Offering. 

Greater 
Sin-Offering. 

'  Lev.  iv.  22-35 ;  v.  9. 

-  One  condition  of  the  Trespass-Offering,  noticed  by  Josephus  (Jeicish 
Anfiqniiies,  lib.  iii.  9),  is  its  reference  to  cases  in  which  persons  were  self- 
accused.  (Vide  Lev.  v.  5.)  But  this  principle  is  not  confined  to  it  ex- 
clusively (vide  Lev.  iv.  23),  nor  does  it  seem  to  have  any  characteristic 
application  in  every  instance.  (Lev.  xix.  21.)  It  would  appear,  there- 
fore, tliat  the  characteristic  circumstance  in  the  Trespass-Otteriugs  was 
that  amends  were  to  be  made,  either  to  God  or  man  (vide  Numbers,  v. 
7,  8),  while  in  the  Sin-Offering  nothing  was  contemplated  but  the  restora- 
tion of  the  Offerer  to  the  privileges  of  worship. 

■'  These  two  classes  of  Sin-offerings  were  distinguished  by  the  Rabbins 
as  the  iiiiter  and  iinur  Sin-offerings,  in  allusion  to  the  two  altars  on  which 
the  blood  was  sprinkled. — Tkoluck  on  Uebreics  xiii.  11. 


EEGAEDED  AS  A  SACEIFlCE.  257 

intercessor/  because  he  participated  himself  in  the  gnilt  for 
which  it  was  offered.  This  might  either  be  because  the  offer- 
ing was  for  the  whole  nation,  ^  or  because  it  was  specifically 
for  himself.^  In  this  case  the  blood  was  brought  into  the 
sanctuary,  and  smeared*  upon  the  horns  of  the  altar  of  in- 
cense, or  sprinkled^  towards  the  mercy-seat,  either  within  or 
without  the  veil ;  while  the  bodies  of  the  victims  were  not, 
as  in  the  other  case,  to  be  eaten  by  the  priest,  but  to  be 
burnt  without  the  camp.  The  ground  of  this  distinction  is 
to  be  found  in  the  fact,  that  it  was  the  eating  of  the  victim 
which  testified  to  the  mediatorial  character  of  the  priest  who 
offered  it :  the  law  of  the  inferior  sin-offering  was,  "  the  priest 
that  offereth  it  for  sin  shall  eat  it;""  "God  hath  given  it  you 
to  bear  the  iniquity  of  the  congregation,  to  make  atonement 
for  them  before  the  Lord."^  When,  therefore,  a  victim  was 
offered,  of  which  the  priest  might  not  eat,  and  still  more, 
when  the  body  of  this  victim  was  to  be  burnt  without  the 
Jewish  camp,  it  was  implied  that  the  plenaiy  blessing  was 
to  be  looked  for  through  a  higher  intercessor,  and  beyond 
the  limits  of  the  Jewish  system.  Those  moral  offences,  whereby 
the  conscience  was  really  burthened,  could  find  no  full  for- 
giveness through  the  sanctions  of  the  Jewish  ritual,  for  "it 
is  not  possible  that  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats  should 
take  away  sins." 

The  meaning  of  these  typical  observances  was  not  apparent, 
probably,  till   their  accomplishment   in  Christ.     Then  it  was 

^  Leviticus  iv.  3 — 12  ;   ix.  7. 

^  Leviticus  xvi.  15,  16.     Hebrews  vii.  27. 

^  Leviticus  xvi.  6. 

*  Leviticus  iv.  7,  18 ;  xvi.  18.  But  Leviticus  ix.  9  seems  to  be  a  case 
in  which  the  blood  was  not  taken  into  the  sanctuary.  The  reason  may  be 
that  Aaron  had  not  yet  entered  upon  his  office ;  he  was  now  to  make 
atonement  for  himself  before  he  began  to  make  atonement  for  the  people ; 
ix.  7.  So  that  it  was  preliminary  to  his  entrance  into  the  sanctuary ; 
ix.  23.  This  case,  therefore,  resembles  the  sacrifice  of  Consecration  offered 
by  Moses,  in  which  no  mention  is  made  that  the  blood  was  brought  within 
the  sanctuary.     Exodus  xxix.  12.     Leviticus  viii.  15. 

^  Leviticus  xvi.  14;  iv.  6,  17;  xvi.  19. 

«  Leviticus  vi.  26.  ^  Id.  i.  17. 

S 


258  THE  HOLY  EUCHAEIST 

Been  that  "  Jesus  also,  that  He  might  sanctify  the  people 
with  His  own  Blood,  suffered  without  the  gate."  He  was  cast 
forth  beyond  the  walls  of  Jerusalem,  like  those  sacrifices  which 
polluted  all  who  touched  them  ;^  just  as  the  death  He  died  was 
an  accursed  one,  for  "cursed  is  every  one  that  hangeth  upon 
a  tree."  But  these  circumstances  changed  their  nature  by 
coming  into  contact  with  Him  who  was  the  principle  of  holi- 
ness ;  the  Cross  was  made  the  badge  of  glory  ;  and  His  death 
outside  the  city  gates  showed  that  the  true  source  of  purity 
was  to  be  sought  beyond  the  limits  of  the  eai-thly  Jerusalem. 

Such  were  the  circumstances  which  are  alluded  to  in  the 
last  Chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  Reference  is  made 
to  that  higher  class  of  Sin-Offerings,  of  which  Aaron  and  his 
sons  might  not  eat,  and  which  had  their  fulfilment  only  in 
the  sacrifice  of  Our  Lord.  The  Jewish  believers  are  reminded 
of  that  singular  privilege  which  attended  the  sacrificial  feast 
of  the  new  Covenant,  whereby  all  Christians  are  allowed  to 
partake  of  a  victim,  which  according  to  the  ancient  usage  was 
forbidden  even  to  the  officiating  priests.  The  Holy  Commu- 
nion, that  is,  lays  those  things  open,  even  to  the  private  Chris- 
tian, which  under  the  law  were  forbidden  even  to  the  anointed 
priest  who  served  the  Tabernacle.  So  that  not  only  is  the 
passage  shown  to  refer  to  the  Holy  Eucharist,  but  we  have  the 
authority  of  an  inspired  expositor  of  the  Mosaic  Law,  when  we 
affirm  that  this  service  answers  to  the  Jewish  Sin-Offering, 
and  even  to  that  highest  class  of  vSin-Offerings  which  derived 
their  validity  from  the  sacrifice  of  Christ.  So  that  this  service 
must  partake  of  that  efficacy  which  appertains  to  the  perfect 
sacrifice  of  Jesus  Christ,  once  for  all ;  and  the  sacrifice  of  Mel- 
chisedec  must  be  an  application  of  the  sacrifice  on  the  Cross. 

The  doctrine,  then,  of  the  Eucbaristic  Sacrifice,  has  its  foun- 
dation in  the  truth  of  the  Real  Presence.  It  is  grounded  upon 
the  same  circumstance  which  has  been  shown  to  be  characteristic 
of  the  Real  Presence  itself,  namely,  that  Christ  is  really  present 
because  of  the  presence  of  His  Body.  For  "although  Christ 
^  Leviticus  xvi.  28. 


EEGAEDED  AS  A  SACEIFICE.  259 

does  not  appear  to  offer  now,"  says  St.  Ambrose,  "  yet  Christ 
Himself  is  offered  on  earth,  when  His  Body  is  offered."  ^  So 
that  the  Eucharistic  sacrifice  rests  upon  the  fact  that  all  access 
to  God  is  through  the  intercession  of  Christ ;  it  implies  that  His 
intercession  depends  upon  the  merit  of  that  slain  Humanity 
which  He  presents  before  God ;  and  that  the  same  Himianity 
which  is  present  naturally  in  Heaven,  is  the  medium  of  His 
supernatural  Presence  in  His  Church's  ordinances ;  so  that 
there  is  one  sacrifice  but  many  altars.  "Neither  do  we  call 
this  sacrifice  of  the  Eucharist  an  eficient  sacrifice,  as  if  that 
upon  the  Cross  wanted  efficacy ;  but  because  the  force  and  vir- 
tue of  that  Sacrifice  would  not  be  profitable  unto  us,  unless  it 
were  applied  and  brought  into  effect  by  this  Eucharistical  Sa- 
crifice, and  other  the  holy  Sacraments  and  means  appointed  by 
God  for  that  end ;  but  we  call  it  propitiatory  both  this  and 
that,  because  they  have  both  force  and  virtue  in  them  to  appease 
God's  wrath  against  this  sinful  world."  ^ 

And  hence  it  may  be  seen  why  Luther  rejected  the  doctrine 
of  the  Eucharistic  Sacrifice,  though  admitting  the  Real  Pre- 
sence, from  which  it  seems  to  be  a  necessary  deduction.  The 
reason  is  the  same  which  induced  him  to  depreciate  the  impor- 
tance of  the  Holy  Eucharist,  at  the  very  moment  when  he  ad- 
mitted its  reality  [vide  p.  91].  Luther's  doctrine  of  Justifica- 
tion did  not  allow  him  to  give  its  full  weight  to  the  work  of 
Christ  in  the  economy  of  man's  salvation.  The  efficacy  of  Our 
Lord's  death  he  fully  admitted,  and  that  it  supplied  the  only 
meritorious  cause  for  man's  acceptance.  But  this  merit  he  sup- 
posed to  be  applied,  not  by  the  act  of  Christ,  but  by  the  act  of 
the  individual.  He  maintained,  not  only  that  faith  is  needed  on 
our  part  for  the  acceptance  of  God's  gifts  (which  is  undeniable), 
but  that  it  supersedes  the  necessity  of  those  Gospel  ordinances, 
whereby  the  Church's  members  partake  the  merits  of  their  Head 
and  Advocate.  To  be  saved  by  faith,  on  this  system,  was  a  sub- 
stitution of  the  powers  of  the  individual,  iu  place  of  the  perpe- 

^  In  Psalm  xxxviii.  25  ;  vol.  i.  p.  853. 
2  Bishop  Cosin.     Ubi  supra. 

S  2 


260  THE  HOLY  EUCHARIST 

tual  work  of  the  Great  Intercessor.  It  professed  to  rest  exclu- 
sively upon  the  merits  of  Our  Lord,  but  to  have  sufficient  re- 
sources iu  itself  to  wield  and  apply  them.  If  it  be  said  that  the 
faith,  on  which  so  much  dependence  was  placed,  was  the  result 
of  grace,  and  the  gift  of  God  ;  yet  still  it  was  a  gift  of  which  the 
individual  had  become  possessed ;  a  gift,  "  which  if  heaven  gave 
it,  might  be  termed  his  own."  So  that  any  how  it  dispensed  with 
the  office  of  the  Church's  Head,  and  supposed  acceptance  to  be 
obtained  through  a  private  effort  of  the  mind,  and  not  through 
participation  in  His  public  actions.  And  thus  did  it  exclude 
the  necessity  of  that  Eucharistic  sacrifice,  whereby  the  Church 
has  part  in  the  Intercession  of  its  Head. 

The  whole  system  of  the  Church,  on  the  other  hand,  has  been 
designed  to  bring  out  the  efficacy  of  Our  Lord's  Intercession, 
and  to  show  that  He  still  continites  to  be  the  sole  agent  "  which 
taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world."  Thus  does  the  particular 
doctrine  of  the  Eucharistic  sacrifice  grow  out  of  the  general 
truth  of  the  Mediation  of  Christ.  It  is  nothing  more  than  the 
admission  of  this  truth,  taken  in  connexion  with  the  fact  of  the 
Real  Presence.  This  must  have  been  peculiarly  felt  by  those 
to  whom  the  system  of  sacrifices  was  familiar,  and  who  were 
accustomed  therefore  to  gain  access  to  God  through  the  public 
act  of  some  ordained  intercessor.  And  to  this  circumstance  it 
is,  probably,  that  we  must  attribute  the  comparatively  little 
notice  which  the  Eucharistic  service  receives  in  Holy  Scripture. 
Not  a  word  is  said  which  militates  against  its  efficacy ;  and  we 
see  it  foreshadowed  in  the  law,  predicted  by  Malachi,  instituted 
by  Our  Lord,  and  referred  to  in  the  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians 
and  the  Hebrews.  But  it  is  not  dwelt  upon  like  those  new 
truths,  which  were  for  the  first  time  impressed  upon  the  Chris- 
tian Church.  That  Our  Lord's  sacrifice  was  complete  in  itself, 
that  it  did  not  need  to  be  repeated,  that  it  superseded  all  the 
offerings  of  the  ancient  covenant — these  were  points  which  it 
was  essential  to  demonstrate  to  those  to  whom  they  were  novel- 
ties, just  as  our  thirty-first  Article  thinks  it  necessary  to  insist 
upon  the  truth,  that  besides  "  the  ofi"eriiig  of  Christ  once  made,"  i 


REGARDED  AS  A  SACRIFICE.  261 

"  there  is  none  other  satisfaction  for  sin."  But  that  the  Priest- 
hood of  Melchisedec  was  exercised  like  other  priesthoods,  through 
the  offering  which  it  presented,  and  consequently,  that  its  opera- 
tion embraced  all  those  means  by  which  Our  Lord's  perpetual 
Presence  was  bestowed  upon  His  people,  was  too  obvious  to 
require  enforcement. 

But  what  proof  have  we  that  the  statements  of  Scripture  are 
to  be  thus  interpreted  ?  Por  the  very  obviousness  which  made 
it  needless  to  insist  upon  this  truth,  lays  it  open  to  contradic- 
tion. What  proof  could  we  have,  except  the  manner  in  which 
the  statements  of  Scripture  were  understood  by  those  to  whom 
they  were  delivered  ?  Did  the  ancient  Church  look  upon  the 
Eucharistic  service  as  a  Sacrifice,  and  speak  of  it  as  the  means 
whereby  men  participated  in  the  one  atonement  ? 

This  question  will  be  best  answered  by  adopting  the  course 
which  was  taken  previously,  and  considering  what  are  the  alter- 
natives of  which  the  case  admits.  One  of  these  is  to  deny  that 
the  Holy  Eucharist  is  a  Sacrifice  at  all.  Another  is  to  admit 
that  it  is  a  Sacrifice,  but  to  afiirm  that  the  thing  presented  is 
not  the  offering  of  Christ,  but  the  devotion  of  the  communicants. 
A  third  is  to  suppose  that  the  sacramentum  only,  that  is,  the 
bread  and  wine,  and  not  the  res  sacramenti,  is  the  thing  offered. 
Each  of  these  notions  has  been  entertained,  but  the  second,  which 
af&rms  the  Holy  Eucharist  to  be  a  sacrifice,  but  states  that  the 
thing  offered  is  only  the  devotion  of  the  worshippers,  is  merely  a 
nominal  answer,  and  resolves  itself  in  reality  into  the  first.  Por 
why  should  this  ordinance  be  called  the  Eucharistic  Sacrifice, 
except  because  its  sacramental  character  bears  some  part  in  the 
offering  ?  Otherwise  it  has  no  more  title  to  the  name  of  sacrifice 
than  every  act  of  prayer  or  praise.  Whether  the  sacramentum 
were  offered,  or  the  res  sacramenti,  we  might  fitly  call  it  a  sacra- 
mental offering ;  but  the  name  is  inapplicable  if  nothing  is  in- 
tended but  that  which  is  common  to  all  religious  offices.  Why 
else  do  we  not  speak  of  a  Baptismal  sacrifice,  since  the  devotion 
of  the  worshippers  may  equally  be  looked  for  in  that  sacrament 
also  ?  Such  a  mode  of  speaking  of  the  Eucharistic  Sacrifice  is  to 


262  THE  HOLY  EUCHARIST 

defend  it,  as  an  acute  opponent  has  recently  observed  respecting 
Waterland,  by  explaining  it  away. 

There  remain,  therefore,  in  reality,  but  three  systems,  which 
it  is  possible  to  entertain.  Either  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  not  a 
sacrifice  at  all,  or  if  it  be,  the  thing  offered  is  either  merely  the 
sacramentum,  or  it  includes  the  res  sacramenti  also.  Those  who 
entertain  the  notions  of  Zuinglius  and  Calvin  cannot  adopt  the 
last  oj^inion,  because  they  either  deny  that  there  exists  any  res 
sacramenti  at  all,  or  deny,  at  all  events,  its  presence  in  the  ordi- 
nance. Their  common  and  most  consistent  course,  has  been  to 
deny  that  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  a  Sacrifice  at  all ;  but  there 
have  not  been  wanting  parties  who  have  professed  to  attach 
great  importance  to  the  Eucharistic  Sacrifice,  and  yet  have 
maintained  that  bread  and  wine  is  all  which  is  offered.  Now 
what  is  the  judgment  of  the  ancient  Chui'ch  respecting  these 
three  opinions  ?  Is  the  Holy  Eucharist  a  sacrifice,  and  is  the 
thing  offered  the  sacramentum  only,  or  the  res  sacramenti 
also? 

In  reference  to  the  first  opinion,  it  may  be  asserted,  without 
fear  of  contradiction,  that  no  doctrine  of  the  Christian  religion  is 
affirmed  with  more  unanimity  ^  by  all  ancient  writers,  than  the 
truth  of  the  Eucharistic  Sacrifice.  St.  Clement,  the  very  earliest 
of  all  ecclesiastical  authorities,  writing  in  the  lifetime  of  Apo- 
stles, mentions  the  "  performing  offerings  and  liturgies  "  ^  as  the 
sei*vice  which  Our  Lord  had  appointed,  and  speaks  of  it  as  the 
peculiar  function  of  the  ministry  "  to  offer  the  gifts." '  St.  Ig- 
natius, but  little  later,  uses  the  word  Altar*  as  the  habitual 
name  of  the  Lord's  Table.  Justin  Martj^r,  almost  the  next 
Christian  writer,  besides  describing  the  sacrifice  of  the  Eucharist 
in  his  first  apology,  twice  quotes  the  prediction  of  Malachi  re- 

*  "Apud  veteres  Patres,  ut  quod  res  est  libere  fateamur,  de  Sacrificio 
Corporis  Cliristi  in  Eucharistia  iucruento  frequens  est  mentio,  qute  dici 
vix  potest  quantopere  quorundam  alioqiii  doctorum  hominum  ingenia 
exercuerit,  torserit,  vexaverit." — Bii>hiip  Miirton  in  Mede.  Ep.  Ixxi. 

*  "  rds  irpoa<popas  koI  Xtirovp-^ias  (irireKtiaOai." — Ad  Coiiuthios,  i.  40. 
^   "  TTpofffyeyKoi'Tas  ra  buipay — lb-  44. 

*  Ad.  Eph.  V.     Ad  Magn.  vii.     Ad  Pliilad.  iv. 


REGARDED  AS  A  SACRIFICE.  263 

specting  the  Christian  service,  and  says  that  the  sacrifice,  which 
was  designed  to  he  offered  by  the  Christian  Church,  was  "  the 
bread  of  the  Eucharist,  and  the  cup  of  the  Eucharist."  ^  St. 
Irenseus  interprets  the  same  prediction,  by  saying  that  it  refers 
to  "  the  oblation  of  the  Church,  which  Our  Lord  taught  to  be 
offered  in  the  whole  world."  ^  And  this  he  explains  to  be  the 
bread  and  the  cup  which  is  taken  from  the  creation,  and  which 
constitute  that  "  new  oblation  of  the  New  Testament  which  the 
Church,  receiving  from  the  Apostles,  offers  throughout  the  whole 
world  to  God."  ^  This  passage  leads  us  on  to  the  statement  of 
St.  Augustin :  "  The  Church,  from  the  age  of  the  Apostles, 
through  the  sure  successions  of  Bishops,  goes  on  even  to  our 
own  time,  and  offers  [immolat)  to  God  the  sacrifice  of  praise  in 
the  Body  of  Christ.  .  .  .  This  Church  is  the  spiritual  Israel,  from 
which  that  carnal  Israel  is  discriminated  which  used  to  serve  in 
the  shadows  of  sacrifices,  by  which  was  typified  that  singular 
sacrifice  which  the  spiritual  Israel  now  offers.  .  .  .  This  last  sa- 
crifices to  God  the  sacrifice  of  praise,  not  according  to  the  course 
of  Aaron,  but  according  to  the  course  of  Melchisedec.  .  .  .  Those 
who  read  know  what  Melchisedec  brought  forth  when  he  blessed 
Abraham,  and  if  they  are  now  partakers  in  him,  they  see  such  a 
sacrifice  to  be  offered  at  present  to  God  throughout  the  whole 
world."  * 

It  can  hardly  be  disputed  that  there  is  no  ancient  writer, 
whose  subject  leads  him  to  speak  of  the  Holy  Eucharist,  who 
does  not  declare  it  to  be  a  sacrifice,  who  does  not  call  the  place 
an  altar  at  which  it  is  offered,  and  the  person  by  whom  it  is 
presented  a  priest.  "  The  clergy,"  says  St.  Cyprian,  "  ought  to 
be  employed  in  nothing  else  but  the  service  of  the  Altar  and  in 
sacrifices."^  "And  the  work  of  the  sacrifice,"  says  St.  Hilary, 
"cannot  take  place  without  a  Presbyter,""  But  while  it  is 
needless  to  multiply  quotations  in  proof  of  that  which  is  indis- 

^  Contra  Tryphonem,  xli.  and  cxvii. 

2  Lib.  iv.  18.  1.  3  Lib.  jy.  17.  5. 

*  Contra  Advers.  Leg.  i.  39.  ^  Ep.  Ixvi.  109. 

®  Oper.  Hist.  Frag.  ii.  16. 


264  THE  HOLY  EUCHARIST 

putable,  It  would  be  wrong  to  omit  all  mention  of  the  ancient 
Liturgies.  For  the  primitive  estimate  respecting  the  Holy 
Eucharist  is  %\atnessed  by  their  existence,  as  well  as  by  their 
construction.  It  has  been  already  stated,  that  we  have  demon- 
sti'ative  proof  what  expressions  were  used  in  the  Liturgies  of 
the  Churches  of  Jerusalem  and  Alexandria,  prior  to  the  year 
451,  while  by  probable  evidence  we  can  show  that  the  general 
framework  of  these  and  other  early  Liturgies  must  have  come 
down  from  the  age  of  the  Apostles.  Now  it  is  unnecessary  to 
insist  on  the  authenticity  of  particular  phrases,  though  even 
these  cannot  be  supposed  to  have  been  interpolated,  when  they 
are  found  in  the  same  identical  form  in  the  Litui'gies  of  different 
countries.  But  there  is  one  thing  which  chai'acterizes  these 
Liturgies  as  a  whole,  and  which  so  completely  interpenetrates 
their  whole  construction,  as  to  be  inseparable  from  their 
existence,  namely,  that  they  consist  of  three  distinct  actions — 
Consecration,  Sacrifice,  and  Communion.  And  the  second  of 
these  is  so  prominently  put  forward,  as  to  be  a  more  marked 
feature  in  the  Liturgies  even  than  Communion :  while  Conse- 
cration is  in  all  cases  introduced  as  conducive  to  the  other  two 
actions. 

Now  there  cannot  be  a  more  convincing  proof  of  the  opinion 
of  the  Ancient  Church,  than  that  this  should  be  the  character  of 
its  common  worship.  The  Christians  met  for  other  purposes — 
for  the  singing  of  Psalms,  and  the  receiving  instruction — but  the 
Eucharistic  Sacrifice,  with  its  attendant  Communion,  was  the 
thing  which  was  especially  dignified  by  the  name  of  Service 
[the  sacred  Liturgy'] :  this  part  alone  of  their  worship  was 
thought  deserving  of  being  fixed  by  the  composition  of  a  public 
Ritual ;  it  was  the  daily  worship  of  the  united  congregation ; 
the  feature  which  has  left  its  trace  in  the  records  of  the  times. 
So  that  even  if  doubt  could  be  thrown  on  individual  expressions, 
we  could  not  doubt  that  the  Holy  Eucharist  was  supposed  to  be 
a  sacrifice  by  the  early  Christians ;  that  they  agreed  with  the 
sentiment  expressed  by  Bishop  Cosin,  "  we  offer  and  present  the 
death  of  Christ  to  God,  that  for  His  death's  sake  we  may  find 


EEGAEDED  AS  A  SACEIFICE.  265 

mercy,   in   which   respect   we    deny  not   this    commemorative 
Sacrifice  to  be  propitiatory."^ 

There  can  be  no  question,  then,  that  the  Holy  Eucharist  was 
understood  to  be  a  sacrifice  by  the  Ancient  Church ;  and  those 
who  look  to  that  Church  to  inform  them  what  written  documents 
contain  the  revealed  will  of  God,  may  be  expected  to  admit  that 
it  was  a  competent  witness  respecting  so  material  a  feature  of 
the  new  Revelation.  But  then  comes  the  second  question : 
allowing  the  Holy  Eucharist  to  be  a  sacrifice,  what  is  the  thing 
offered — is  it  the  sacramentum  only,  or  the  res  sacramenti  also ; 
is  it  mere  bread  and  wine,  or  the  Body  of  Christ  ?  Now  it  may 
readily  be  admitted  that  the  sacramentum  is  offered :  the  bread 
and  wine,  as  a  sort  of  first-fruits  of  creation,  are  brought  as  an 
offering  to  Grod,  with  a  view  of  being  employed  in  this  solemn 
service,  and  are  thus  devoted  with  various  preliminary  rites,  as 
being  the  means  which  are  reqtiired  by  the  priest  according  to 
the  order  of  Melchisedec,  for  the  celebration  of  His  ritual.  And 
on  this  account  the  sacrifice  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  may  be  fitly 
spoken  of  as  a  memorial  of  Christ.  For  as  the  external  part  of 
this  ordinance  is  described  by  the  Fathers  as  a  type  or  figure  of 
the  inward  reality,  by  which  it  is  accompanied  [cap.  viii.  p.  164]  ; 
so  the  oblation  of  the  sacramentum  serves  as  a  memorial  of  Him 
who  is  really  offered  as  the  res  sacramenti,  or  thing  signified. 
So  much  is  allowed  by  all  who  believe  that  any  sacrifice  is  offered 
in  the  Holy  Eucharist.  The  point  in  dispute  is,  whether  this  is 
all  which  is  offered ;  whether  there  be  no  further  view  in  the 
service,  no  deeper  meaning ;  whether  this  service  is  a  memorial 
only,  or  a  reality  also.  It  cannot  be  expected  that  those  who 
take  the  Zuinglian  or  Calvinistic  view  of  this  ordinance  should 
see  anything  more  in  it,  because  they  suppose  that  they  are 
dealing  only  with  a  sacramentum,  or  external  form,  and  deny 
the  existence  of  the  res  sacramenti,  or  thing  signified.  But  it 
would  be  surprising  to  find  this  notion  shared  by  persons  who 
believe  in  the  Real  Presence  of  Christ.  If  the  effect  of  conse- 
cration be  to  join  together  the  sacramentum  and  res  sacramenti, 
^  NichoUs's  Additional  Notes,  p.  46. 


266  THE  HOLY  EUCHARIST 

why  should  persons  exclude  the  one  and  offer  up  the  other? 
"Why  should  they  exclude  the  reality  or  thing  signified,  and 
offer  up  the  mere  form  and  shell  of  the  victim  ?  Is  not  this  to 
be  deluded  by  a  system  of  shadows?  There  is  a  consistency 
in  denying  that  this  service  is  a  sacrifice  at  all :  it  is  to 
reject  the  concurrent  sentence  of  all  antiquity ;  to  divest 
the  worship  of  the  Christian  Church  of  its  reality,  and  to 
detract  from  the  present  efficacy  of  the  Intercession  of  Christ : 
yet  though  a  false  system,  it  is  hannouious  with  itself. 
But  to  allow  the  Holy  Eucharist  to  be  a  sacrifice,  yet  sup- 
pose that  nothing  is  offered  but  its  external  shell  and  cover- 
ing— that  the  Church  honours  God  by  presenting  to  Him 
the  empty  husk  of  its  victim — is  little  consonant  with  the 
truth  and  actuality  of  the  Christian  dispensation.  It  is  to 
substitute  the  shadows  of  the  Law  for  the  realities  of  the 
Gospel. 

Hei'e  again,  however,  we  need  that  test  which  is  supplied  by 
the  judgment  of  the  ancient  Church.  Did  it  suppose  that  it 
was  offering  to  God  the  sacr amentum  only,  or  the  res  sacramenti 
aJso?  It  has  been  maintained  that  the  former  was  the  idea  in 
the  second  century,  because  the  general  expressions,  used  at  that 
period,  do  not  specify  that  the  oblation  of  the  external  form  in- 
volved the  offering  of  the  inward  reality.  Waterland,  who 
attempts  to  sustain  this  theory,  is  obliged  to  admit  that 
St.  Cyprian,  who  has  occasion  to  explain  the  nature  of  the  Holy 
Eucharist  more  fully,  affiims  the  twofold  character  of  that 
which  is  offered.  "  Who  is  more  the  Priest  of  the  Most  High 
God,"  says  St.  Cyprian,  "  than  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who 
offered  a  sacrifice  to  God  the  Father,  and  offered  that  self-same 
thing  which  Melchisedec  had  offered,  that  is  bread  and  wine, 
namely,  His  own  Body  and  Blood  ?  "  And  he  adds  :  "  if  Jesus 
Christ,  Our  Lord  and  God,  is  Himself  the  High-Priest  of  God 
the  Father,  and  after  offering  Himself  up  to  the  Father,  ordered 
this  to  be  done  in  commemoration  of  Him,  that  priest  surely  is 
a  true  vicegerent  of  Christ,  who  imitates  that  which  Christ 
did ;    and   he   offers   a    true    and    full    sacrifice   to    God    the 


REGARDED  AS  A  SACRIFICE.  267 

Father,  if  he  begins  to  offer,  as  he  sees  that  Christ  Himself 
offered." ' 

St.  Cyprian  was  far  from  intending  that  the  Eucharistic 
Sacrifice  should  supersede,  or  be  added  to,  that  of  the  Cross — 
"  We  make  mention,"  he  says,  "  of  Christ's  passion  in  all  sacri- 
fices, for  the  sacrifice  which  we  offer  is  the  passion  of  Our  Lord"^ 
— but  he  is  distinct  in  his  assertion,  that  it  is  through  the  Eu- 
charistic service  that  we  participate  in  the  oblation  which  is 
perpetually  presented  in  heaven  by  our  Great  High-Priest,  and 
that  the  thing  offered  is  not  only  bread  and  wine,  but  the  res 
sacramenti,  or  thing  signified.  He  speaks  of  one  who  presumed 
to  solemnize  this  service  *  without  the  Church's  authority,  as 
"  an  enemy  to  the  altar,  a  rebel  against  the  sacrifice  of  Christ ;  " 
and  as  "  profaning  by  false  sacrifices  the  truth  of  the  divine 
victim."  These  statements  of  St.  Cyprian,  Waterland  would  set 
aside,  by  asserting  that  there  was  a  "  change  of  language  intro- 
duced in  his  time."  But  for  this  he  has  no  kind  of  ground,  ex- 
cept that  St.  Cyprian's  statements  are  more  definite  than  those 
of  an  earlier  period.  For  what  ancient  writer  ever  hinted  that 
St.  Cyprian  employed  language  on  this  subject  which  had  not 
prevailed  in  the  century  before  him  ?  Why  did  not  Eusebius 
observe  this  discrepancy,  when  he  reviewed  the  period  which 
preceded  him,  while  all  its  monuments  were  still  in  existence  ?. 
What  weight  has  an  argument  like  this,  which  professes  to 
stand  merely  on  negative  evidence,  when  it  is  first  heard  of 
at  the  distance  of  fifteen  centuries  ?  And  considering  that 
St.  Cyprian  was  born  within  about  a  hundred  years  after  the 
death  of  St.  John,  when  as  yet  the  theological  language  of  the 
Church  was  far  from  matured,  such  a  mode  of  reasoning  is  not 
only  fatal  to  the  evidence  for  Episcopacy,  but  it  might  be  used 
as  an  argument  against  those  fundamental  statements  respecting 
the  Blessed  Trinity,  and  respecting  the  Person  and  Offices  of 
the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  the  Church  was  subse- 
quently guided  to  elicit  from  Holy  Scripture.     Besides,  if  we 

^  Epistola,  Ixiii.  sec.  4  and  14.  ^  lb.  Ixiii.  sec.  17. 

3  "Audet  aliud  altare  facere,"  &c. — De  Unitate,  p.  185,  Rig.  [1666]. 


268  THE  HOLY  EUCHARIST 

look  at  the  writers  before  St.  Cyprian,  we  find  that  their  views 
exactly  accord  with  his,  though  they  are  less  explicit  in  unfold- 
ing them.  St.  Ignatius  not  only  speaks  of  the  Altar,  but  says 
that  "  the  Eucharist  is  the  Flesh  of  Our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ 
which  suffered  for  our  sins."  ^  Justin  Mart}T  tells  us  that  the 
bread  and  wine,  which  in  other  places  he  speaks  of  as  offered 
up  in  sacrifice,  are  "  the  Flesh  and  Blood  of  the  Incarnate 
Jesus."  ^  St.  Irenseus  says  that  "  the  cup  and  the  bread  which 
the  creation  supplies,"  and  which  are  the  oblation  which  the 
Church  offers  throughout  the  world,  are  affirmed  by  Our  Lord 
to  be  "  His  own  Blood,"  and  "  His  Body."  '  And  he  speaks  of 
"  the  Word  "  *  (he  must  mean  of  course  according  to  its  human 
nature),  as  the  Church's  Eucharistic  sacrifice.  Finally,  the 
objective  efficacy  of  such  services  is  attested  by  St.  Cyprian's 
master,  Tertullian,  when  he  declares  the  "  ohlationes  irro  de- 
functis  "  ''  to  be  a  stated  part  of  Christian  woi'ship.  Let  these 
statements  be  brought  together,  and  wherein  do  they  fall  short 
of  the  more  detailed  expositions  of  the  truth  of  the  Eucharistic 
Sacrifice,  which  we  have  from  St.  Cyprian  and  St.  Hippolytus  in 
the  following  century  ?  The  latter,  speaking  of  Our  Lord  as 
predicted  under  the  name  of  Wisdom,  says,  "  She  has  prepared 
her  table,  the  revealed  knowledge  of  the  Sacred  Trinity ;  and 
His  precious  and  spotless  Body  and  Blood,  which  are  daily 
celebrated  at  the  mystical  and  divine  table,  and  sacrificed  in 
memorial  of  that  first  memorable  table  of  the  mystical  divine 
supper."  " 

The  brevity  of  the  earliest  writers,  then,  is  not  to  be  esteemed 
an  argument  against  the  more  systematic  declarations  respecting 
the  Holy  Eucharist,  which  we  meet  with  in  the  third  century, 
any  more  than  their  imperfect  expressions  respecting  Our  Lord's 
nature  are  oj)posed  to  the  full  truth  of  the  Nicene  formulary. 

^  Ad  Smyr.  vi.  ^  Apol.  i.  66.  »  Lib.  v.  ii.  2. 

*  S.  Iren.  iv.  xviii.  4.  Massuet's  readinjr  is  supported  by  the  best 
manuscripts.  Hiifliing's  sole  ground  of  objection  to  it  appears  to  be  his 
dislike  to  tlie  doctrine  which  it  illustrates. 

^  De  Corona,  iii.  _  ''  Gallandi,  vol.  ii.  p.  488. 


EEGAEDED  AS  A  SACEIFICE.  269 

There  Is  no  historical  ground  for  supposing  that  the  opinion  of 
the  third  and  fourth  centuries  on  this  subject,  was  different  from 
that  of  the  first  and  second.  Not  the  slightest  trace  exists  of 
any  dispute  or  difference  of  opinion,  such  as  must  needs  have 
arisen,  if  innovations  had  been  introduced  in  a  fundamental 
doctrine.  The  judgment  of  the  whole  Church,  diffused  through 
many  countries,  and  employing  various  languages,  was  entirely 
coincident.  On  many  subjects  there  were  warm  and  lasting  dis- 
putes ;  respecting  this,  not  an  expression  of  dissonance.  This 
circumstance  would  fully  justify  an  appeal  to  that  larger  period 
in  which  Christian  authors  became  more  numerous,  and  their 
statements  more  complete,  even  if  men  refused  to  recognise  that 
authority  in  the  Church,  which  is  assigned  to  her  in  our  20th 
article.  For  those  who  allow  the  Church  to  have  "  authority 
in  controversies  of  faith,"  must  of  course  acknowledge  its  preten- 
sions in  that  age,  when  the  four  first  Councils  expressed  the 
opinion  of  the  undivided  body ;  while  those  who  suppose  it  to 
be  nothing  but  a  witness,  ought  to  respect  its  testimony  to  the 
institutions,  if  they  appeal  to  its  judgment  respecting  the  docu- 
ments of  the  Christian  faith.  Now  the  judgment  of  the  Church 
to  the  time  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  may  be  expressed  in  the 
following  assertions : — 

First — The  thing  offered  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  affirmed  in 
express  terms  to  be  the  Body  of  Christ.  St.  Cyril's  account  of 
"  that  holy  and  most  awful  sacrifice "  is,  that  "  we  offer  up 
Christ  sacrificed  for  our  sins."  ^  St.  Augustin's  way  of  stating 
that  the  Holy  Eucharist  had  been  celebrated  in  the  house  of 
Hesperius,  is  that  a  priest  "  offered  up  there  the  sacrifice  of  the 
Body  of  Christ."  ^  He  affirms  that  Our  Lord  has  made  "  the 
sacrifice  of  His  own  Body  "  to  be  "  the  sacrament  of  the  faith- 
ful ; "  ^  and  he  discriminates  between  the  Christian  and  the 
Jewish  covenant,  by  saying,  tliat  "  instead  of  all  those  sacrifices 
and  oblations.  His  Body  is  offered  and  is  ministered  to  the  par- 
ticipants." *     St.  Maximus  justifies  the  custom  of  burying  the 

1  Mys.  Cat.  v.  9,  10.  ^  De  Civ.  Dei,  xxii.  8.  6. 

^  Epis.  cxl.  61.  *  De  Civ.  Dei,  xvii.  xx.  2. 


270  THE  HOLY  EUCHARIST 

bodies  of  saints  under  the  altar,  by  observing  that  "Christ  is 
placed  upon  the  altar."  '  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria's  description 
of  the  Holy  Eucharist  is,  that  "  the  Lamb  of  God  which  taketh 
away  the  sin  of  thQ  world  is  slain.  .  .  .  The  Son  is  voluntarily 
sacrificed,  not  to-day  by  the  hands  of  God's  enemies,  but  by 
Himself."  ■-' 

But  no  one  is  more  full  in  his  assertions  on  this  subject  than 
St.  Chrysostom.  His  Liturgy,  like  every  other  ancient  liturgy, 
is  express  in  declaring  that  the  thing  given  in  the  Holy  Eucharist 
is  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ.  The  prayer  of  the  priest  in  his 
ritual  is,  "  make  this  bread  the  precious  Body  of  Thy  Christ ;" 
"and  that  which  is  in  this  cup  the  jorecious  Blood  of  Thy 
Christ;"'  and  the  usual  words  of  administration  involved  the 
same  assertion ;  "  after  consecration,"  says  St.  Ambrose,  "  it  is 
called  Blood.  And  you  say,  Amen,  that  is,  it  is  true."*  And 
these  statements  of  St.  Chrysostom's  Liturgy  are  borne  out  by 
expressions  in  his  other  works.  He  describes  the  spectators  of 
the  Holy  Eucharist  as  "  beholding  Our  Lord  slain,  and  lying 
there,  and  the  priest  standing  over  the  Sacrifice  and  praying:"^ 
he  speaks  of  the  priest  as  "  performing  that  most  awful  sacrifice, 
and  continually  touching  the  common  Lord  of  all;"*  the  com- 
munion table,  he  says,  is  like  the  manger  at  Bethlehem,  "  for 
there,  too,  will  lie  the  Body  of  the  Lord;"^  the  purpose  of 
coming  to  Church  he  describes  to  be  "  to  perform  the  sacrifice  of 
the  Son  of  God  ;"^  and  to  the  communicant  he  says,  "consider 
what  kind  of  victim  you  are  about  to  handle,  what  table  to 
approach.  Bethink  you  that  being  earth  and  ashes  you  take  the 
Body  and  Blood  of  Christ."^  And  in  like  manner  in  his  Homilies 
on  Holy  Scripture,  he  speaks  of  it  as  the  privilege  of  the  New 
Covenant,  that  Our  Lord  had  "  changed  the  very  sacrifice  itself, 
and  instead  of  the  slaughter  of  irrational  animals,  had  commanded 

'  De  Natal.  Sanct.  Serm.  78. 

-  Vol.  V.  part  ii.  p.  371,  in  Mys.  Caen.  ^  Goar,  p.  77. 

■»  De  Mysteriis,  ix.  54  ;  vid.  8.  Aug.  Sermo  272. 

''  De  Sacerdotio,  iii.  4.  *  De  Sacerdotio,  vi.  4. 

"  De  Philogonio,  3.  *  De  non  Anathematizandis,  4. 

^  In  Diem  Nat.  Christ.   7. 


I 


EEGAEDED  AS  A  SACRIFICE.  271 

us  to  offer  up  Himself."  And  "  that  which  He  suffered  not  on 
the  cross,  this  He  suffers  in  the  oblation  for  thy  sake,  and 
submits  to  be  broken,  that  He  may  fill  all  men."  ^  And  so  on  the 
Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  he  speaks  of  the  angels  as  descend- 
ing to  witness  the  Holy  Eucharist,  because  then  "  the  sacrifice  is 
brought  forth,  and  Christ,  the  Lord's  sheep,  is  slaughtered."  "^ 

Secondly — The  sacrifice  offered  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  is 
affirmed  not  to  be  anything  superadded  to  that  on  the  Cross,  nor 
yet  a  repetition  of  it.  For  it  was  maintained  that  the  Sacrifice 
on  the  Cross  was  a  perpetual  Sacrifice,  which  had  been  consum- 
mated in  Our  Lord's  death,  in  order  that  it  might  be  continually 
brought  before  Grod  in  the  Holy  Eucharist.  "  "Was  not  Christ 
slain  once  in  Himself,"  says  St.  Austin,  "  and  yet  in  the  sacrament 
He  is  slain  for  the  people  not  only  every  Passover,  but  every 
day."^     And  St.  Chrysostom  : — 

"  "What,  then,  do  we  not  offer  every  day  ?  Certainly  we  do  : 
but  to  make  a  memorial  of  His  death.  And  this  memorial  is 
one,  and  not  many.  How  can  it  be  one,  and  not  many? 
Because  it  has  been  brought  once  for  all,  like  that  sacrifice 
which  was  carried  into  the  Holy  of  holies.  For  that  Jewish 
sacrifice  had  a  relation  to  that  on  the  Cross,  and  the  Eucharist 
has  a  relation  to  it.  For  we  offer  always  the  same ;  we  do  not 
offer  one  sheep  to-day  and  another  to-morrow ;  we  offer  always 
the  same :  so  that  it  is  one  sacrifice.  Otherwise,  since  the 
sacrifice  is  offered  in  many  places,  there  must  be  many  Christs. 
But  this  is  not  the  case,  but  there  is  one  Christ  everywhere, 
whole  Christ  here,  and  whole  Chi'ist  there — one  Body.  As 
therefore  He  is  one  Body,  though  offered  in  many  places,  and 
not  many  bodies ;  so  likewise  is  there  one  Sacrifice.  It  is  that 
High-Pi'iest  of  ours  who  has  offered  the  Sacrifice  which  cleanses 
us.  And  we  offer  even  now  that  Sacrifice  which  was  then  too 
offered — the  inexhaustible  Sacrifice.  This  happens  in  memory 
of  that  w  hich  then  took  place.  For  '  do  this,'  He  says,  '  in 
memory  of  Me.'  It  is  not  a  different  sacrifice,  as  the  High- 
Priest  presented  in  former  times  ;  but  we  offer  always  the  same  : 
or  rather  w  e  perform  a  memorial  of  that  sacrifice."  * 

■•  Horn.  xxiv.  on  1  Corinth,  sec.  3,  4.  ^  Horn.  iii.  5. 

^  Epist.  xcviii.  9.     Vide  also  Contra  Faustum,  xx.  18. 
*  In  Epist.  ad  Hebr.  Horn.  xvii.  3. 


272 


THE  HOLY  EUCHARIST 


I  add  a  passage  from  the  fifth  Paschal  Homily,  which  is 
attributed  to  Eusebius  Emissenus,  but  which  was  probably  the 
work  of  8t.  Caesarius,  who  was  born  shoi"tly  after  the  Council  of 
Chalcedou.  "  It  was  necessary  that  He  who  was  about  to  with- 
draw the  Body  which  He  had  assumed  from  our  sight,  and  to 
transfer  it  to  heaven,  should  this  day  consecrate  for  us  the 
sacrament  of  His  Body  and  Blood ;  that  the  same  object  which 
was  once  offered  as  the  price  of  our  ransom,  might  be  continually 
worshipped  in  a  mystery ;  that  as  a  daily  and  exhaustless 
redemption  was  provided  for  man's  salvation,  so  there  might 
be  the  perpetual  offering  up  also  of  their  redemjition ;  and  that 
that  Victim  might  live  continually  in  memory,  and  be  always 
present  by  grace.'" 

Thirdly — The  victim  offered  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  was  said 
to  be  identical  with  Ilim  who  offered  it.  Such  was  the  constant 
language  of  the  Liturgies :  "  Thou  art  He  that  offerest  and  art 
offered,  0  Christ,  our  God."  ^  A  set  of  expressions  to  which  St. 
Ambrose  apparently  makes  allusion.  "  We  have  seen  the  Prince 
of  high-priests  coming  to  us :  we  have  seen  and  heard  Him 
offering  His  Blood  for  us :  we  who  are  priests  follow  as  we  can, 
that  we  may  offer  a  sacrifice  for  the  people  ;  though  weak  in  our 
own  deserts,  yet  to  be  honoured  for  our  sacrifice  ;  because  though 
Christ  is  not  now  seen  to  offer,  yet  He  Himself  is  offered  upon 
earth  when  the  Body  of  Christ  is  offered ;  yea.  He  Himself  is 
discovered  to  offer  in  our  persons,  whose  word  hallows  the 
sacrifice  which  is  offered,"  ^  And  again :  "  He  gave  bread  to 
His  Apostles,  that  they  might  divide  it  to  the  mass  of  believers  ; 
to-day  He  gives  to  us  that  bread  which  He  Himself  as  High- 
Priest,  consecrates  daily  with  His  own  words."*  And  so  St. 
Cyril  on  the  Mystical  Supper:  "  He  who  is  mystically  eaten  in 
Egypt,  here  voluntarily  sacrifices  Himself:"  and  again  we  are 

1  Bib.  Pat.  Mai.  vi.  636. 

'  Goar,  p.  72.  So  in  the  Sacramentary  of  S.  Leo:  "Sancti  Spiritus 
operaute  virtute  pacrificium  jam  nostrum.  Corpus  et  Sanguis  est  ipsius 
bacerdotis." — JUuraturi,  LUunjia  liomuna  Vitas,  vol.  i.  p.  469. 

•*  In  Psalm,  xxxviii.  Euar.  25,  vol.  i.  p.  b53. 

*  De  Beuedictioud  Patriarcli.  ix.  38,  vol.  i.  p.  524. 


EEGAEDED  AS  A  SACEIFICE.  273 

bidden  to  "  believe  that  He  Himself  continues  both  Priest  and 
Victim  ;  Himself  the  offerer  and  the  offered  "  ^  • — passages  which 
we  must  interpret  in  consistency  with  St.  Cyril's  own  statement 
respecting  Our  Lord :  "  we  assign  to  no  man,  except  Him,  the 
name  and  substance  of  the  priesthood."  ^ 

Fourthly — It  was  the  habitual  custom  of  ancient  writers  to 
speak  of  the  sacrifice  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  as  awful,  august, 
and  terrible.  The  Liturgy  of  St.  James  calls  it  "  the  tremendous 
and  unbloody  sacrifice  ;"  St.  Basil  speaks  of  "  Thy  tremendous 
and  heavenly  mysteries ;"  St.  Chrysostom  describes  it  as  "  that 
fearful  and  most  tremendous  cup,"  and  he  perpetually  uses  such 
expressions  as  the  "  awful  mysteries  "  ' — "  that  tremendous  and 
divine  Table."* 

Fifthly — They  speak  of  the  sacrifice  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  as 
truly  efficacious  for  the  obtaining  of  all  those  things,  which  are 
the  subject-matter  of  prayer  and  of  intercession.  This  is 
manifest  on  the  slightest  inspection  of  the  ancient  Liturgies ; 
and  their  evidence  to  it  would  not  be  affected,  even  if  it  were 
admitted  that  some  or  all  of  them  had  suffered  verbal  inter- 
polation. For  it  rests  upon  their  structure  and  general  tenor. 
Their  common  purpose  is  to  solicit  benefits  for  the  worshippers, 
and  for  the  whole  body  of  Christ ;  and  the  petitions  to  this  end 
either  grow  out  of  the  sacrifice,  and  are  founded  upon  it,  as  is 
usually  the  case,  or  at  all  events  have  a  direct  relation  to  it. 
This  practice  is  repeatedly  observed  upon  by  ancient  writers, 
and  is  referred  to  in  a  canon  of  the  very  early  Council  of 
Elvira.^  Eusebius  speaks  of  the  Bishops  whom  Constantine 
collected  at  Jerusalem,  as  "appeasing  the  Divine  Power  with 
bloodless  sacrifices  and  mystical  solenmizations." "^  "After  the 
spiritual  sacrifice  is  perfected,"  says  St.  Cyril,  "the  bloodless 

1  S.  Cyril,  A.  v.  2,  pp.  375,  378. 

*  Harduin,  i.  1289.     (Letter  to  Nestorius.) 
^  On  1  Cor.  Horn.  xxiv.  3. 

•*  In  diem  Nat.  Christi,  7. 

*  "Hujus  nomen  neque  ad  altare  cum  oblatione  recitandum,"  &c. — ■ 
Can.  29,  Hard.  i.  253. 

6  De  Vita  Const,  iv.  45. 


274  THE  HOLY  EUCHARIST 

service  upon  that  Sacrifice  of  Propitiation,  we  entreat  God  for 
the  common  peace  of  the  Church,  for  the  tranquillity  of  the 
world ;  for  kings ;  for  soldiers  and  allies ;  for  the  sick  ;  for  the 
afflicted ;  and  in  a  word,  for  all  who  stand  in  need  of  succour, 
we  all  supplicate  and  offer  tliis  sacrifice.  Then  we  commemorate 
also  those  who  have  fallen  asleep  before  us,  first  Patriarchs, 
Prophets,  Apostles,  Martyrs,  that  at  their  prayers  and  inter- 
vention God  would  receive  our  jietition.  Afterwards  also  on 
behalf  of  the  holy  Fathers  and  Bishops  who  have  fallen  asleep 
before  us,  and  in  a  word,  of  all  who  in  past  years  have  fallen 
asleep  among  us,  believing  that  it  will  be  a  great  advantage  to 
the  souls  for  whom  the  supplication  is  put  up,  while  that  Holy 
and  most  Awful  Sacrifice  is  presented."  ^  To  the  same  effect 
speaks  St.  Chrysostom,  observing  that  "our  service  is  not  mere 
scenery,  God  forbid,"  but  that  prayers  may  be  put  up  with 
confidence  before  the  altar,  because  "  there  lies  there  the  common 
expiation  of  the  world."  ^ 

Sixthly — The  Sacrifice  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  declared  to 
have  been  that  which  the  Jewish  ordinances  were  intended  to 
typify.  Eusebius^  contrasts  it  with  the  ancient  sacrifices,  and 
states  them  to  be  superseded  by  it ;  and  the  Apostolical 
Constitutions  give  a  detailed  account  of  the  relation  of  the  two 
Covenants.  "  Baptism,  the  sacrifice,  the  priesthood,  .  .  .  Our 
Lord  altered.  Instead  of  daily  He  gave  one  Baptism,  that  into 
His  death :  instead  of  one  tribe.  He  appointed  that  the  best  of 
every  nation  should  be  ordained  to  the  priesthood  ; . .  .  instead  of 
bloody  sacrifices  He  ai^pointed  the  one  reasonable,  bloodless,  and 
mystical  sacrifice,  that  of  His  own  Flesh  and  Blood,  which  is  per- 
formed by  symbols  (into,  t.e.)  in  reference  to  the  death  of  the 
Lord."*  St.Chrj'sostom  therefore  says,"  our  Passover  is  the  offering 
and  sacrifice  wliich  is  made  on  every  occasion  of  public  worship."  ^ 

1  S.  Cyril's  Fifth  Myst.  Cat.  8,  9. 
^  On  1  Cor.  XV.  46,  Horn.  xli.  5. 
^  Demonatratio  Evang.     Lib.  ii.  cap.  s.  p.  37. 
"*  Apost.  Const,  vi.  23. 

*  "^  Ka6'  (KiaTT]v  yivofihr]  avva^iv." — Hum.  adv.  Judxos,  iii.  4,  vol.  i. 
p.  611. 


REGARDED  AS  A  SACRIFICE.  275 

And  St.  Augustin  speaks  of  "  the  sacrifice  of  the  Church,  of 
which  all  kinds  of  former  sacrifices  were  shadows."^  And 
referring  to  the  man  cured  of  leprosy,  he  says  that  Our  Lord 
ordered  a  sacrifice  to  be  offered  according  to  the  Jewish 
ordinances,  "  because  their  place  was  not  yet  taken  by  that 
sacrifice  which  afterwards  he  would  have  celebrated  in  the 
Church  in  the  place  of  all  of  them,  seeing  that  by  all  of  them  He 
was  Himself  predicted."^  And  when  he  has  occasion  to  speak 
of  "  that  table  which  our  High  Priest  Himself,  the  Mediator  of 
the  New  Testament,  exhibits,  according  to  the  order  of  Melchise- 
dec,  in  His  own  Flesh  and  Blood,"  he  adds ;  "  for  that  sacrifice 
has  succeeded  to  all  those  sacrifices  of  the  Old  Testament  which 
were  slain  as  a  shadow  of  Him  who  was  to  come.  .  .  .  For  instead 
of  all  these  sacrifices  and  oblations  His  Body  is  offered,  and  is 
ministered  to  the  communicants."^ 

Seventhly — But  the  Sacrifice  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  said 
to  differ  from  those  of  the  law,  in  that  the  latter  were  only  a 
shadow,  while  the  former  is  a  reality.  St.  Augustin  discrimi- 
nates the  Christian  from  the  Jewish  covenant,  by  observing  re- 
specting the  latter,  that  in  their  temple  "  the  Body  and  Blood  of 
Christ  was  not  yet  accustomed  to  be  offered."  *  "When  St.  Je- 
rome contrasts  David's  act  in  taking  the  Shew  Bread,  with  the 
particiimtion  of  the  Holy  Eucharist,  "  there  is  as  much  differ- 
ence," he  says,  "between  the  Shew  Bread  and  the  Body  of 
Christ,  as  between  a  shadow  and  bodies,  between  an  image  and 
the  truth,  between  the  types  of  future  things,  and  the  things 
which  those  types  prefigured."  ^  St.  Cyril  says,  respecting  the 
Holy  Eucharist,  "  it  is  obvious  that  this  is  a  divine  mystery,  and 
that  its  participation  is  life-giving,  and  that  the  force  of  this 
bloodless  sacrifice  is  far  superior  to  that  of  the  services  of  the 
law ;  and  this  follows  because  the  injunctions  given  by  Moses  to 

^  Contra  Adversar.  Legis  i.  37.  ^  De  Baptismo,  iii.  27. 

^  De  Civitate  Dei,  xvii.  20.  2.  Vide  also  Enar.  in  Psalm  xsxix.  12, 
p.  334.  S.  Leo,  Serm.  Ivii.  de  Passione,  sec.  7.  Theodoret  on  Heb.  xiii. 
10,  vol.  iii.  p.  460. 

*  Epis.  xxix.  4. 

*  In  Ep.  ad  Titum,  i.  vol.  iv.  part  i.  p.  418. 

T  2 


276  THE  HOLY  EUCHARIST 

the  ancients  were  said  to  be  shadows,  but  Christ,  and  what  be- 
longs to  Him,  to  be  the  truth."  *  And  again,  a  few  lines  fur- 
ther, when  contrasting  the  Christian  with  the  Jewish  covenant ; 
"  how  much  is  their  system  inferior  to  ours,  on  whom  Christ, 
that  is,  the  truth,  hath  shone  forth,  having  given  us  His  own 
life-giving  Flesh  for  our  participation." 

Eighthly — To  offer  the  sacrifice  of  the  Holy  Eucharist,  is 
declared  to  be  an  especial  office  committed  to  the  Apostles  and 
their  successors.  For  as  Eusebius  describes  it  in  the  passage 
recently  quoted,  the  bishops  who  were  not  occupied  in  other 
services,  were  employed  to  "  propitiate  the  Divine  power  with 
unbloody  sacrifices ; "  and  "  the  work  of  sacrifice,"  says  St. 
Hilaiy,  "  could  not  happen  without  a  presbyter."  ^  "  No  one 
doubts,  I  suppose,"  says  Victor  of  Antioch,  "  that  by  the  words 
'  take,  this  is  Afy  Body^  &c..  Our  Lord  gave  His  Apostles  the 
power  of  celebrating,  and  of  performing  the  mysteries  of  the 
New  Testament :  "  ^  whereas  previously,  "  it  was  not  committed 
to  tlie  AjDostles  to  make  and  minister  the  celestial  Bread  for  the 
food  of  eternal  life."  *  And  this  was  the  function  which  they 
transmitted  to  tlieir  successors ;  so  that  St.  Gregory  Nazianzen 
speaks  of  St.  Athanasius  as  having  been  admitted  into  the  order 
of  those  "  who  approached  to  their  ajoproachiug  God ; "  and  says 
he  was  educated  as  befitted  those  who  were  "  to  handle  the 
mighty  Body  of  Christ."  '' 

These  several  statements  supply  decisive  proof,  that  the 
ancient  Church  supposed  the  offering  presented  in  the  Holy 
Eucharist  to  consist  not  of  the  sacramentum  only,  but  of  the 
res  sacramenti  also.  For  not  only  did  the  ancient  writers  speak 
of  the  offering  as  the  Body  of  Christ,  and  identify  the  sacrifice 
with  the  sacrificer,  but  they  speak  of  it  in  terms  of  awe  and 
reverence,  to  which  a  mere  external  sign  could  not  possibly  be 


'  Advers.  Nest.  iv.  5,  vol.  vi.  p.  112. 

2  Ex.  Op.  Hist.  ii.  16,  p.  1294. 

3  Bib.  Pat.  Max.  iv.  p.  407. 

*  S.  Hilar,  iu  jNIatth.  cap.  xiv.  sec.  10,  p.  681. 

*  Oratiu,  xxi.  4,  p.  376. 


REGARDED  AS  A  SACRIFICE.  277 

entitled.  Neither  could  the  sacramentum,  in  itself,  be  the  reality 
which  availed  for  man's  acceptance ;  it  could  not  be  the  antitype 
to  the  services  of  the  Jewish  law ;  nor  could  its  presentation 
accord  well  with  so  solemn  a  commission  as  that  of  the  Apostles. 
So  that  if  we  are  to  understand  the  statements  of  Scinpture,  as 
they  were  understood  by  those  to  whom  they  were  uttered,  we 
must  suppose  not  only  that  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  a  sacrifice,  but 
that  the  thing  sacrificed  is  the  reality,  or  res  sacramenti,  that 
is,  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ. 

And  hence  it  may  be  seen  on  what  principle,  and  in  what 
degree,  the  devotion  of  Christians  makes  part  of  the  sacrifice  of 
the  Holy  Eucharist.  I  have  already  shown,  that  considered  in 
itself,  it  does  not  answer  to  those  conditions  which  are  to  be 
looked  for  in  the  Eucharistic  Sacrifice.  For  there  is  nothing 
sacramental  in  its  character ;  there  is  no  sacramentum  or  res 
sacramenti ;  the  prayers  which  are  offered  at  the  Holy  Com- 
munion do  not  differ  from  those  which  accompany  any  other  act 
of  worship.  But  there  is  one  view  in  which  the  worshippers 
may  be  regarded,  which  connects  them  with  that  wliich  has 
been  shown  to  be  the  true  oblation  in  the  Holy  Eucharist ; 
and  this  circumstance  it  is  which  enables  them  to  "  present 
themselves,  their  souls  and  bodies,  a  reasonable,  holy,  and  lively 
sacrifice."  For  "the  Christian  sacrifice,"  says  St.  Augustin,  is 
"  the  many  who  make  up  one  body  in  Christ."  So  that  "  the 
whole  congregation  and  society  of  the  saints  is  offered  to  God 
as  an  universal  sacrifice  by  its  great  High  Priest,  who  also 
offered  up  Himself  in  His  Passion  for  us,  that  we  might  be 
the  Body  of  so  great  a  Head."  ^  On  this  principle  did  the 
Apostle  speak  of  the  oblation,  of  which  he  was  the  minister, 
as  "  the  offering  up  of  the  Gentiles ; "  inasmuch  as  in  this  sense 
the  Christian  Church  itself  constitutes  the  sacrifice  which  is 
presented  to  God.  Thus  it  is  in  some  sort  the  res  sacramenti, 
which  is  aptly  symbolized  by  the  many  grains,  which  have  been 
kneaded  together  into  its  outward  part  or  earthly  emblem.  For 
"  we  being  many,  are  one  bread  and  one  body."  So  that,  re- 
^  De  Civitate  Dei,  x.  6. 


278    THE  HOLY  EUCHARIST  REGARDED  AS  A  SACRIFICE. 

garded  in  this  manner  in  its  collective  character,  the  Christian 
Church  fulfils  the  conditions  of  a  sacramental  offering.  But 
nothing  can  show  more  clearly  than  this  very  circumstance,  that 
the  true  res  sacramenti,  Christ's  Body  in  its  Real  Presence,  is 
not  excluded  from  the  sacrifice.  For  what  is  it  which  gives  its 
sanctity  to  the  mystical  Body  of  Christ,  and  qualifies  it  to  be 
presented  to  the  Holy  God  V  Is  it  not  that  it  is  His  Body  from 
whom  all  gifts  of  grace  extend  themselves  to  His  members  ? 
"  He  has  mingled  Himself  with  us,  and  has  infused  His  Body 
into  us,  that  we  might  be  rendered  one  entity  as  a  body  united 
to  its  head."  ^  For  is  it  not  the  perfection  of  His  Body  natural, 
by  which  His  Body  mystical  is  sanctified  ?  The  ointment  which 
has  been  poured  forth  upon  the  Church's  Head,  has  reached 
down  to  the  skirts  of  its  clotliing.  If  the  Body  mystical  there- 
fore of  Christ  be  a  fit  sacrifice  to  off'er  to  God,  it  is  by  reason  of 
the  influence  and  presence  of  that  Body  natui-al  by  which  it  is 
ennobled.  So  that  when  she  is  herself  offered  up  "  a  living  sa- 
crifice, holy,  acceptable  unto  God,"  we  may  not  exclude  that,  by 
which  alone  this  is  rendered  a  grateful  sacrifice  to  the  Father. 
The  Church,  Avliich  is  the  mystical  Body  of  Christ,  is  accepted 
through  the  perpetual  pleading  of  His  Body "  natural. 

To  conclude.  The  Eucharistic  Sacrifice  is  not  the  offering  of 
the  sacramentum  only,  the  first-fruits  of  nature,  but  much  more 
that  of  the  res  sacramenti,  the  reality,  or  thing  signified.  It  is 
the  offering  up  of  the  collective  Church,  Christ's  mystical  Body, 
but  it  is  also  the  offering  up  of  Christ  Himself,  by  whom  that 
Body  is  sanctified.  Yet  He  is  not  offered  up  as  though  any- 
thing could  be  added  to  the  sacrifice  of  the  Cross,  or  as  though 
that  sacrifice  required  renewal.  The  blood-stained  sacrifice 
which  the  One  Great  High  Priest  for  ever  pleads  before  the 
Father's  throne,  admits  neither  of  increase  nor  repetition.  "  For 
in  the  Church  of  God,  which  is  the  Body  of  Christ,  neither  is 

1  S.  Chrys.  in  Joan.  Horn.  xlvi.  sec.  3,  p.  272.  Vide  S.  Isidor,  Pelus. 
Epis.  lib.  iii.  Ep.  75 ;  Bib.  Pat.  vii.  642. 

2  Hence  the  ancient  Canon  (Hard.  i.  963),  that  the  Euchariatic  Sacrifice 
should  be  addressed  exclusively  to  the  Father. 


THE  BENEFITS  OF  THE  HOLY  EUCHARIST.  279 

the  priesthood  valid,  nor  the  sacrifices  real,  unless  the  true  High 
Priest  in  our  very  nature  reconciles  us ;  unless  we  are  washed 
in  the  true  Blood  of  the  spotless  Lamb.  "Who  although  He 
be  placed  at  the  Father's  right  hand,  yet,  in  the  same  Flesh 
which  He  took  of  the  Virgin,  carries  out  the  sacrament  of  our 
propitiation ;  as  the  Apostle  says,  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  dead, 
yea,  rather  who  is  risen  from  the  dead,  who  is  even  at  the  right 
hand  of  God,  who  also  maketh  intercession  for  us."  ^  He  who 
has  been  consecrated  a  Priest  for  ever  after  the  order  of  Melchi- 
sedec,  chooses  this  medium  for  giving  effect  to  His  perpetual 
intercession.  That  acceptance  which  He  purchased  by  the  sa- 
crifice of  the  cross.  He  applies  through  the  sacrifice  of  the  altar. 
He  Himself  it  is,  who  through  the  voice  of  His  ministers  con- 
secrates these  earthly  gifts,  and  thus  bestows  the  mystery  of  His 
Real  Presence.  By  Himself,  again,  is  the  precious  Victim  pre- 
sented before  the  Father's  throne ;  and  the  intervention  of  their 
Heavenly  Head  gives  reality  to  the  actions  of  His  earthly  mi- 
nisters. 


CHAPTER  XII. 


THE   BENEFITS   WHICH    KESULT    FEOM    THE    HOLY    EUCHARIST. 

The  nature  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  has  been  considered.  It 
remains  to  say  something  respecting  its  results.  They  will  be 
found  to  be  determined  by  the  character  of  the  ordinance,  so 
that  its  benefits  must  be  ascertained  by  reference  to  its  nature. 
This  is  the  course  adopted  in  Holy  Scripture,  and  followed, 
as  was  observed,  in  the  Catechism  of  our  Church.  Whereas 
the  benefits  of  Baptism  are  directly  stated,  and  great  promises 
are  annexed   to    its   observance,  the   celebration  of  the  Holy 

1  S.  Leo,  Epist.  Ix.  2. 


280  THE  BENEFITS  OF 

Eucharist  is  not  commended  to  us  with  any  promise,  nor  is  it 
directly  asserted  to  be  attended  by  any  spiritual  benefit. 

The  reason  of  this  difference  apparently,  is  that  Baptism 
has  no  res  sacramenti,  which  can  be  tlistinguished  from  the 
virtus  sacramenti;  so  that  in  Bajitism  the  inward  part  cannot 
be  spoken  of,  without  the  enumeration  of  those  benefits  which 
it  contains.  Therefore  we  hear  of  "  the  washing  of  regenera- 
tion," and  that  "  Baptism  doth  even  now  save  us."  And  so 
in  the  Catechism,  the  inward  part  of  this  ordinance  is  "  a  death 
unto  sin,  and  a  new  birth  unto  righteousness."  But  in  the 
Holy  Eucharist  the  benefits  which  accrue,  and  the  promises 
which  pertain  to  it,  are  something  distinct  from  the  inward 
l^art,  of  which  they  are  a  consequence.  So  that  they  are  not 
associated  with  the  ordinance  at  large,  but  with  the  inward 
part  or  thing  signified.  The  only  tiling  which  is  told  us  re- 
sjjecting  the  ordinance  at  large  is,  that  the  inward  and  outward 
parts  are  so  joined  together  by  the  mystical  tie  of  consecration, 
that  to  receive  the  one  is  to  receive  the  other.  We  learn  its 
benefits,  therefore,  from  what  is  told  us  respecting  the  res 
sacramenti  or  thing  signified ;  and  thence  gather  what  must 
be  the  advantages  of  an  ordinance,  which  else  would  come  down 
to  us  a  mere  arbitrary  appointment. 

I.  Regarding  the  Holy  Eucharist  then  in  tliis  manner,  let 
us  first  ask  what  are  its  benefits,  considered  as  a  sacrifice. 
They  follow  from  the  fact,  that  it  is  through  this  service  that 
the  Great  High  Piiest,  who  has  been  consecrated  according 
to  the  order  of  Melchisedec,  performs  His  perpetual  functions. 
So  that  here  we  have  a  fulfilment  of  that  which  Our  Lord  pre- 
dicted respecting  the  Holy  Eucharist ;  "  the  bread  which  I  will 
give  is  My  Flesh,  which  I  will  give  for  the  life  of  the  world." 
Thus  does  this  ordinance  resolve  the  highest  act  of  earthly 
worship,  into  a  function  of  Our  Mediator's  heavenly  office.  It 
represents  Him  not  only  as  having  paid  once  for  all,  the  price 
of  man's  deliverance,  but  likewise  as  perpetually  applying  it 
through  His  prevailuig  intercession.  To  regard  tlie  Holy 
Eucharist,  therefore,  as    the   main   sacrifice    of  the   Christian 


THE  HOLY  EUCHAEIST.  281 

Church,  is  to  suppose  that  human  worship  is  only  acceptable, 
so  far  as  it  is  identified  with  the  offering  of  Christ.  So  that 
we  approach  God  in  this  service  with  peculiar  confidence,  be- 
cause "  the  common  expiation  of  the  world  lies  before  us.  There- 
fore with  boldness  do  we  then  entreat  for  the  whole  world."  ^ 
"In  the  oblation  following,"  says  Bishop  Cosin  respecting  our 
own  form  of  consecration,  "  we  pray  that  it  may  prevail  so 
with  God,  as  that  we  and  all  the  whole  Church  of  Christ 
(which  consists  of  more  than  those  that  are  upon  the  earth) 
may  receive  the  benefit  of  it."  ^  For  "  not  in  vain,"  says 
St.  Chrysostom,  "did  the  Apostles  order  that  remembrance 
should  be  made  of  the  dead  in  the  dreadful  mysteries.  They 
know  that  great  gain  resulteth  to  them,  and  great  assistance ; 
for  when  the  whole  people  stand  with  uplifted  hands,  a  priestly 
assembly,  and  that  awful  Sacrifice  lies  displayed,  how  shall  we 
not  prevail  with  God  by  our  entreaties  for  them."  ^ 

The  benefit  of  the  Holy  Eucharist,  then,  as  a  sacrifice, 
depends  on  the  peculiar  grounds  of  acceptance  with  which  in 
that  ordinance  we  are  enabled  to  draw  near  to  God.  We 
can  approach  boldly,  because  our  offering  is  consecrated  by 
His  own  Presence.  And  this  circumstance  gives  a  reality  to 
the  worship  of  the  universal  Church,  which  nothing  else  can 
bestow  upon  it.  It  is  seen  to  have  but  one  worship  and  one 
ritual,  one  central  altar,  with  which  all  altars  thi'oughout  the 
whole  world  are  identified.  He  who  pleads  there,  presents  the 
prayers  of  all  saints  before  the  throne  of  God.  But  it  is  not 
their  own  merit  which  gains  them  acceptance,  but  the  in- 
estimable value  of  that  spotless  Humanity,  which  was  slain 
once  that  it  might  be  offered  for  ever.  "  This  is  the  power 
of  the  priesthood,  this  is  the  High  Priest.  For  He  did  not 
offer    a    sacrifice    Himself   once,   and    then    cease    from    His 

1  S.  Chrys.  on  1  Cor.  Horn.  xli.  5,  vol.  x.  393. 

^  NichoUs's  add.  Notes,  p.  46. 

^  Horn.  iii.  4,  in  Philipp.  vol.  xi.  p.  217.  "  Neque  negandum  est  de- 
functorum  animas  pietate  suorum  viventium  relevari,  cum  pro  illis  sacri- 
ficium  Mediatoris  ofFertur." — S.  Aug.  de  Dulc  Ques.  ii.  4,  vol.  vi.  p.  130. 
Vide  also  De  Cum  pro  Mortuis,  22,  vol.  vi.  p.  530. 


282  THE  BENEFITS  OF 

Priesthood ;  but  in  this  manner  does  He  for  ever  discharge 
that  service,  wherehy  He  is  our  perpetual  advocate  with  God : 
for  which  reason  it  was  said  of  Him,  '  Thou  art  a  Priest  for 
ever.'  Therefore  it  is  that  the  faithful  need  have  no  doubt 
concerning  the  sanctification  of  the  gifts,  nor  yet  respecting 
the  other  ordinances,  and  whether  the  purpose  and  prayers  of 
the  priesthood  are  fulfilled.'" 

II.  I  turn  to  the  benefits  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  regarded 
as  a  sacrament.  In  order  to  appreciate  them,  it  is  necessary 
to  recall  to  our  thoughts  the  principle  upon  which  sacraments 
are  dependent.  They  are  the  application  of  the  Incarnation ; 
the  means  of  bringing  home  to  each  individual,  that  benefit 
which  was  bestowed  by  Christ  upon  our  collective  race.  The 
intercourse  which  originally  existed  between  the  Supreme  Mind, 
and  the  minds  which  He  had  created,  had  been  cut  off  by  sin, 
so  that  it  was  essential  that  a  channel  of  connexion  should  be 
re-opened  between  them.  For  all  good  is  in  God,  and  has  its 
source  in  His  adorable  nature.  So  that  to  the  creature  it  can 
come  only  by  transmission  from  that  its  native  habitation.  In 
order,  then,  that  it  might  be  transmitted  to  our  fallen  race, 
did  God  the  Word  condescend  to  become  the  Mediator  between 
God  and  man,  by  taking  that  nature  in  which  He  offered  Him- 
self as  a  victim.  Thus  did  He  jirovide  a  new  road  of  intercourse 
for  humanity  at  large,  seeing  that  in  His  Person  the  Infinite 
and  the  finite,  God  and  man,  the  Blessed  Trinity  and  the 
children  of  Adam,  were  brought  into  relation. 

Out  of  this  relation  to  humanity  at  large,  flow  those  two 
ordinances  of  Baptism  and  the  Holy  Eucharist,  whereby  this 
gift  is  communicated  to  individuals.  These  ordinances  differ 
from  one  another,  in  that  Baptism  is  the  act  whereby  God 
the  Holy  Ghost  puts  each  separate  child  of  the  old  Adam 
into  relation  with  that  Humanity  of  the  New  Adam,  which 
is  the  medium  of  life  to  the  soul ;  whereas  the  Holy  Eucharist 
is  the  act  whereby  through  the  efficacy  of  the  same  Blessed 
Spirit,  the  Incarnate  "Word  bestows  the  Real  Presence  of  His 
'  "Germani  lleruui  Eccl.  Conteiuplatio." — Gallamli,  xiii.  "222. 


THE  HOLY  EUCHARIST.  283 

very  Flesh  and  Blood,  for  the  food  of  His  people.  So  that 
Christ's  Body  may  be  said  to  be  present  even  in  Baptism, 
because  in  that  ordinance  the  Incarnate  Saviour  is  Himself 
present  by  Spiritual  power,  but  the  Man  Christ  Jesus  is  really 
present  in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  by  reason  of  the  presence  of 
His  Body  and  Blood.  Baptism,  therefore,  is  the  first  means 
of  putting  men  into  connexion  with  the  Blessed  Trinity,  through 
their  relation  to  the  Humanity  of  Christ ;  and  consequently 
the  form  of  Baptism  is  a  consecration  into  the  Name  of  the 
Three  Persons  in  the  glorious  Godhead ;  but  the  Holy  Eucharist 
is  the  perpetual  communication  of  that  rene\\ed  type  of 
Humanity,  which  Our  Lord  consecrated  in  Himself  by  the 
taking  of  the  manhood  into  Grod.  So  that  both  ordinances 
illustrate  St.  Cyril's  statement :  "  that  which  produces  in  us 
the  Divine  likeness  must  be  our  sanctification,  that  is,  the  par- 
taking of  the  Son  through  the  Spirit."  ^ 

The  difference  which  has  been  pointed  out  between  these 
two  sacraments,  is  the  reason  why  Baptism  does  not  require 
that  consecration  of  the  elements,  which  is  essential  to  the 
Holy  Eucharist.  For  Baptism  is  the  combination  of  a  visible, 
and  an  invisible  action,  whereby  the  Holy  Gfhost  works  effectually 
upon  the  receiver's  mind.  But  in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  the 
inward  part,  or  thing  signified,  is  not  the  efiicacy  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  though  that  Gracious  Spirit  condescends  to  be  the 
agent  who  bestows  it,  but  the  very  Body  and  Blood  of  the 
Incarnate  Son.  These,  therefore,  are  not  united  to  the  outward 
part  merely  as  an  act  is  connected  with  the  sign  which  is 
simultaneous  with  it ;  but  the  outward  and  inward  parts  are 
truly  joined  together,  so  that  they  can  be  dealt  with  as  if  they 
were  identical.  Such  is  the  work  which  is  effected  by  con- 
secration, whereby  the  inward  and  oi;tward  parts  in  the  Holy 
Eucharist  are  bound  together  by  the  operation  of  the  Holy 
Gbost.  For  "  our  mystical  bread  and  cup  are  produced  by  a 
certain  consecration.     That  which  is  not  so  produced  is  only 

^  De  Sancta  Trinitate  Dial.  vi.  vol.  v.  part  i.  p.  595. 


284  THE  BENEFITS  OF 

an  earthly  aliment,  not  a  sacrament  of  religion."  ^  And  such 
a  process  is  not  required  in  Baptism,  because,  though  in  that 
Siicrameut  men  are  joined  to  the  "  Last  Adam,"  and  thus  made 
members  of  their  ^lystical  Head,  yet  the  union  is  not  brought 
about  through  any  actual  communication  of  Our  Lord's  Body 
and  Blood,  but  only  through  the  efficacy  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
For  "Baptism  is  truly  Christ's  and  fii-om  Christ,"  but  "the 
power  of  the  m3'stical  Eucharist  is  derived  fi-om  His  sacred 
Flesh."'' 

If  it  be  asked,  then,  what  is  the  exact  benefit  which  we 
derive  from  the  Holy  Eucharist,  the  answer  must  be  found 
by  considering  what  Our  Lord  has  revealed  respecting  the 
efficacy  of  that  Flesh  and  Blood,  which  it  has  pleased  Him  to 
make  the  medium  of  His  Presence.  And  here  it  must  be 
remembered  that  we  are  not  speaking  of  the  efficacy  of  His 
Flesh  and  Blood  according  to  a  natural  order,  or  as  though 
it  were  the  nourishment  of  the  body,  but  of  its  efficacy  according 
to  that  divine  law  of  a  sacramental  Presence,  whereby  He 
bestows  it  as  the  nourishment  of  the  soul.  So  that  we  are  not 
supposing  a  ceiiain  portion  of  matter  to  be  endued  with  the 
power  of  producing  magical  effects :  the  Flesh  and  Blood  of  Our 
Lord  are  life-giving,  because  they  are  united  to  His  Person, 
and  are  the  means  whereby  His  Presence  is  dispensed.  And 
therefore  the  Holy  Eucharist  may  be  called  a  moral  ^  and  not 
a  physical  agent,  i.e.  an  agent  which  is  not  independent  of 
the  will  of  Him  by  whom  it  is  employed.  This  distinction 
Our  Lord  points  out  when  He  says,  "  it  is  the  Spirit  that 
quickeneth ;  the  flesh  profiteth  notliing."  He  does  not  say  that 
under  no  circumstances  does  the  flesh  profit :  indeed.  He  had 
just  before  asserted  the  contrary ;  but  it  profiteth  nothing  in 
itself,  and  as  detached  from  that  spiritual  principle  of  which  it 
is  the  agent. 

"Even  in  Christ  the  flesh  must  not  be  thought  of  alone, 
and  in  itself,  for  it  has  united  to  it  that  "Word,  who  is  natu- 

'  S.  Aug.  contra  Faustum,  xx.  13.  -  S.  Cyril  A.  iv.  p.  1074. 

^  Vide  Estius  in  lib.  iv.  Sent.  Dist.  i.  5,  and  supra,  cap.  ii.  p.  14. 


THE  HOLY  EUCHARIST.  285 

rally  life.  When,  therefore,  Christ  calls  it  life-giving,  it  is 
not  to  it,  so  much  as  to  Himself,  or  to  His  own  Si^irit,  that 
He  testifies  that  the  life-giving  power  belongs.  For  it  is 
through  Himself  that  His  own  Body  is  life-giving,  since  He 
reconstituted  the  elements  of  His  nature  through  His  own 
power.  How  He  did  so,  neither  can  mind  conceive,  nor  tongue 
express,  but  we  must  admire  with  silence,  and  a  faith  which 
passes  understanding."^ 

It  is  as  the  instrument,  then,  of  Our  Lord  Himself,  as 
the  medium  through  which  He  bestows  His  Presence,  and 
not  because  a  certain  portion  of  matter  is  competent  of  itself 
to  produce  miraculous  effects,  that  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  bene- 
ficial. Our  Lord  has  been  pleased  to  make  the  Flesh  and 
Blood  which  He  took,  the  chamiel  of  His  blessings.  "  The 
bread  that  I  will  give  is  My  Flesh."  And  for  this  He  had 
made  preparation,  by  sanctifying  that  nature  which  He  had 
assumed.  "For  their  sakes  I  sanctify  Myself,  that  they  also 
might  be  sanctified  through  the  truth."  It  is  for  the  carry- 
ing out  of  this  work  that  the  Holy  Eucharist  was  appointed, 
wherein,  says  St,  Cyril,  Our  Lord  declares  to  us,  "  I  become 
such  as  you  for  your  sakes,  without  departing  from  My  own 
nature,  that  you  might  be  partakers  of  the  Divine  nature 
through  Me."^  "For  the  manna  was  not  the  bread  of  life, 
but  rather  I  who  came  down  from  heaven,  who  quicken  all 
things,  and  infuse  Myself  into  those  who  eat  Me,  even  through 
the  Flesh  which  has  been  united  to  Myself"^  And  so  speaks 
St.  Augustin,  when  he  compares  the  manner  in  which  the 
Divine  gifts  are  bestowed  upon  mankind,  to  the  provision 
which  is  made  for  the  support  of  an  infant  through  its  mother's 
milk.  After  saying  that  "  ipsum  panem  mater  incarnat,"  he 
applies  the  analogy  to  the  case  of  Our  Incarnate  Lord,  who 
being  as  God  "  the  food  of  angels,"  bestows  Himself  as  the 
tood  of  men  in  the  Holy  Eucharist.* 

'  S.  Cyril  A.  iv.  p.  377  ;  vide  supra,  cap.  vi.  p.  115. 
2  S.  Cyril  in  Myst.  Ccenam,  vol.  v.  pt.  2,  p.  374. 
='  Id.  Adv.  Nest.  iv.  5,  vol.  vi.  113. 

*  "  Saginantur  illo  angeli :  sad  semetipsum  exinanivit,  ut  manducaret 
panem   Angelorum   homo." — hi  Psalm,  xxxiii.  Enar.  i.  6.     "Cum   vita 


286  THE  BENEFITS  OF 

And  hence  follow  two  consequences — first,  the  quickening  of 
our  mortal  nature  by  the  seed  of  a  higher  life ;  and  secondly, 
the  privilege  of  a  more  intimate  relation  to  the  Divine  nature. 
The  former  has  its  ground  in  that  statement  of  St.  Paul,  "  the 
first  man  Adam  was  made  a  living  soul,  the  last  Adam  was 
made  a  quickening  Spirit."  For  "  how  can  they  say,"  exclaims 
St.  Ireuseus,  "  that  the  flesh  passes  into  corruption,  and  does 
not  partake  of  life,  which  is  fed  with  the  Body  of  the  Lord, 
and  with  His  Blood  ?"^  "For  though  death  having  made  in- 
vasion through  sin,  has  power  over  man's  ])ody  to  destroy  it, 
yet  since  Christ  becomes  our  inmate  by  His  own  Flesh,  we 
shall  surely  rise  again.  For  that  life  should  not  quicken  those 
in  whom  it  dwells,  is  incredible,  or  rather  impossible."^  And 
this  connects  itself  with  the  other  truth — the  present  exalta- 
tion of  our  nature  by  union  with  God.  For  the  union  of  Per- 
sons with  one  another  in  the  Blessed  Trinity,  is  graciously  set 
forth  as  the  principle  and  ground  of  that  union,  which  the  In- 
carnate "Word  maintains  with  His  people.  "As  the  living 
Father  hath  sent  Me,  and  I  live  by  the  Father,  even  so  he 
that  eateth  Me,  even  he  shall  live  by  Me."  As  the  eternal 
and  co-equal  Son  derives  His  Divine  nature  by  ineffable  gene- 
ration from  the  self-existent  Father,  so  does  He  communicate 
His  Human  nature  in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  as  the  spiritual 
sustenance  of  His  brethren.  "  Thus  through  the  Mediator  is 
there  a  perfect  unity,  while  we  abide  in  Him  and  He  in  the 
Father,  and  abiding  in  the  Father  He  abides  in  us."  For 
"  while  He  is  in  the  Father  by  the  nature  of  Deity,  we,  on  the 
contrary,  are  in  Him  by  His  corporal  nativity,  and  He  in  us 
by  the  mystery  of  the  saci-aments."^ 

We  should  launch  out  into  a  wide  sea,  were  we  to  enume- 
rate all  the  benefits  which  the  ancient  writers  attribute  to  this 
holy  sacrament.     In   their  estimate   it  was   life,  forgiveness, 

ista  transient  .  .  .  nee  sacramentum  altaris  habemus  accipere,  quia  ibi 
erimus  cum  Christo,  cujus  corpus  accipimus." — /8.  Aiig.  Serrn.  lix.  6. 

'  S.  Iren.  iv.  18.  5.  -  «.  CjTil  A.  vol.  iv.  p.  363. 

^  S.  Hilarius  De  Triuit.  viii.  15. 


THE  HOLY  EUCHAEIST.  287 

sanctificatlon,  strength,  nourishment,  an  entrance  into  the  Holy 
of  Holies,  the  surest  pledge  of  eternal  bliss.  "  Corpus  Christi 
ecUmus,  ut  vitce  ceternce  possimus  esse  participes."^  These  are 
all  included,  however,  in  the  two  previous  statements,  first, 
that  our  nature  is  purified  by  the  entrance  of  the  Body  of 
Christ ;  secondly,  that  by  oneness  with  the  Body  of  the  Medi- 
ator, it  is  brought  into  near  relation  with  the  nature  of  God. 
And  therefore,  without  dwelling  upon  the  words  in  which 
devout  men  of  old  time  gave  vent  to  their  feelings  of  love  and 
admiration,  we  may  pass  on  to  two  cautions  by  which  these 
two  considerations  require  respectively  to  be  guarded.  It  must 
be  observed,  first,  that  the  process  by  which  Christ's  Body  and 
Blood  act  upon  the  receiver  is  spiritual  and  not  physical  : 
secondly,  that  the  relation  which  is  thus  brought  about  between 
the  receiver  and  Christ  is,  according  to  the  law  of  love,  not 
the  law  oi  personality. 

First — It  might  be  imagined  from  the  words  of  St.  Cyril, 
that  he  supposed  that  some  carnal  commixture  took  place 
between  the  Body  of  Christ,  and  the  material  substance  of 
ours.  But  this  was  not  his  belief,  or  that  of  the  other  Fathers ; 
although  their  assertions,  that  the  Body  of  Christ,  which  suf- 
fered on  the  cross,  is  truly  received  into  man's  body  in  the 
Holy  Eucharist,  might  be  thought  to  involve  such  a  conse- 
quence. For  it  must  be  remembered  that  they  were  not  speak- 
ing of  a  natural  Presence  of  Christ's  Body,  but  of  a  Presence 
which  was  supernatural ;  of  a  Presence  which,  if  we  define 
matter  to  be  that  which  is  an  object  to  the  senses,  may  be 
called  immaterial.  Such  a  Presence  they  asserted  to  be  brought 
about  in  a  supernatural  manner  by  the  power  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Hence  the  belief  that  while  the  sacramentum,  or  out- 
ward part,  is  assimilated  to  the  human  body  as  natural  food, 
the  res  sacramenti,  or  Body  of  Christ,  becomes  the  food  of 
the  soul.  "  Our  Lord  feeds  His  Church  with  these  sacra- 
ments "  (i.  e.  of  the  Body  and  Blood),  "  by  which  the  substance 

^  S.  Ambros.  in  Luc.  lib.  x.  49. 


288  THE  BENEFITS  OF 

of  the  soul  is  strengthened."^  And  the  same  statement  re- 
appears in  the  treatise  on  sacraments,  which,  though  it  is  not 
quoted  in  this  place  as  an  authority,  because  its  genuineness 
is  doubtful,  was  certainly  modelled  after  the  teaching  of  St. 
Ambrose — "That  bread  of  eternal  life  sustains  the  substance 
of  our  soul."  ^  This  is  equivalent  to  the  mediaeval  statement, 
"  the  Body  of  Christ  is  the  food  not  of  the  belly,  but  of  the 
mind :  of  the  soul  and  not  the  body."  ^  And  therefore  the 
benefit  of  this  sacrament  cannot  be  obtained  without  faith ; 
seeing  that  it  is  only  through  faith  that  the  inward  part,  or 
res  sacramenti,  can  be  apprehended  by  the  mind.  So  St.  Am- 
brose :  "  Christ  is  touched  by  faith,  Christ  is  seen  by  faith : 
He  is  not  touched  with  the  body,  He  is  not  taken  in  by  the 
eyes."^  To  the  same  purpose  is  the  well-known  statement  of 
St.  Augustin  :  "  quid  paras  denies  et  ventrem  ;  crede  et  mandu- 
casti."^  These  words  have  sometimes  been  quoted  as  if  they 
were  designed  to  oppose  the  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence, 
whereas  they  were  intended  against  the  Capernaites,  who  sup- 
posed that  Our  Lord's  Body  was  to  be  eaten  in  the  way 
of  natural  food ;  but  the  truth  which  they  express  is  of  general 
application,  for  faith  is  essential  if  the  res  sacramenti  is  to  be 
the  siDiritual  nourishment  of  the  soul.  So  that  though  Our 
Lord's  Body  and  Blood  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  are  the  source 
of  benefit  to  our  whole  constitution,  yet  these  benefits  must 
come  to  us  through  the  intervention  of  the  believing  mind. 
The  Body  of  Christ,  which  we  receive  in  this  sacrament,  is  a 
renewed  and  renewing  example  of  our  common  humanity ;  but 
it  does  not,  and  cannot,  act  directly  upon  our  material  structure, 
seeing  that  its  Presence  is  not  that  natural  Presence  which  could 

1  S.  Ambros.  de  Myst.  ix.  5.5. 

^  S.  Ambros.  de  Sacramentis,  v.  24.  ^  S.  Thomae  Opusc.  lix.  6. 

■*  S.  Ambros.  iu  Lucaiu,  lib.  vi.  57. 

*  S.  Aug.  in  Joan.  Tract  xxv.  12.  So  William   of  Paris:    "Dentes 

siquidem  intellectus  in  ijisuui,  quanto  jirofundius  possunt,  tigendi   sunt, 

ut  inde  saporum  e.xprimatur  suavitas.  Horum  autem  dentium  tixiones 
non  sunt,  nisi  profund;e  atque  acutae  de  illo  cogitationes." — De  Sacram. 
Euchur.  cap.  vii.  p.  429. 


THE  HOLY  EUCHAEIST.  289 

be  an  object  to  the  senses,  or  supply  nourishment  to  our  bodily 
frame.^  Although  we  may  pray,  therefore,  "  that  our  sinful 
bodies  may  be  made  clean  by  His  Body,"  as  well  as  "  our  souls 
washed  by  His  most  precious  Blood,"  yet  it  is  only  through  a 
spiritual  process  that  this  work  can  be  effected,  and  its  medium 
must  be  a  believing  heart. 

Those  among  the  ancient  writers  who  have  been  observed  to 
be  less  exact  than  St.  Augustin,  in  discriminating  between  the 
external  and  internal  parts  in  this  sacrament  (sup.  cap.  ix.  p. 
196),  may  be  shown  to  have  been  entirely  accordant  with  him 
in  their  principles,  since  they  taught  that  the  object  of  the  Holy 
Eucharist  is  not  to  nourish  the  bodies  of  the  receivers,  but  to 
build  up  the  Body  of  Christ.  So  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  says 
that  the  purpose  of  reception  is,  "  that  thou,  by  partaking  of  the 
Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  mightest  be  made  of  the  same  body 
and  the  same  blood  with  Him."  ■^  "  It  is  called  communion,  and 
is  so  truly,"  says  St.  John  Damascene,  "  because  by  it  we  com- 
municate with  Christ ;  we  share  by  it  in  His  Flesh  and  Deity, 
and  communicate  and  are  made  one  with  one  another."  ^  This 
is  to  afiirm  that  the  purjoose  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  to  incor- 
porate men  more  completely  into  the  Body  of  Christ,  and  it 
accords,  therefore,  with  the  statement  which  St.  Augustin  makes 
of  the  effect  of  Grospel  ordinances.  "  It  is  the  will  of  Our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  to  be  fed  by  the  ministry  of  His  servants,  that  is, 
to  transfer  believers  into  His  Body,  as  though  they  were  things 
which  could  be  slain  and  eaten."  *     The  idea  is  built  upon  that 

^  This  is  strikingly  put  by  William  of  Paris,  though  he  carried  on  the 
notion,  so  as  to  deny  to  the  sacramentum,  as  well  as  to  the  res  sacramenti, 
the  power  of  nourishing  the  body.  "  Manifest um  est  mensam  altaiis, 
postquam  mensa  animarum  efFecta  est,  nihil  habere  corporalis  cibi,  vel 
potus  :  alioquin  non  solum  supervacue  illud  haberet,  sed  etiam  ad  illu- 
sionem,  et  ridiculum.  Quemadmodiun  enim  si  corporibus  reficiendia 
apponeretur  cibus  spiritualis,  illuderetur  eis ;  sic  in  mensa  animarum, 
cibus  corporalis  ad  illusionem  animarum  tantum  esset  et  ridiculum." — 
De  Sacramento  Eucharistise,  cap.  i.  p.  415.     (Venice,  1591.) 

-  Myst.  Cat.  iv.  3. 

^  Damascen.  de  Fide  Orthod.  iv.  13,  p.  273. 

■•  Qusest.  Evangel,  ii.  39.  These  strong  expressions  were  derived,  pro- 
bably, from  his  having  in  his  mind  the  words,  "Arise,  Peter,  slay  and 


290  THE  BENEFITS  OF 

fundamental  law,  on  which  depends  the  existence  of  organized 
bodies,  that  their  maintenance  is  through  the  assimilation  of 
external  substances,  by  which  their  own  structure  is  continually 
increased.  Now  we  have  Our  Lord's  autliority  for  saying,  that 
His  sacred  Body  is  in  some  manner  the  nourishment  of  men. 
*'  My  Flesh  is  meat  indeed."  So  that  St.  Chrysostom  illustrates 
the  state  of  the  ungodly  receiver,  by  that  of  a  man  whose  dis- 
ordered body  is  incapable  of  digesting  food.'  But  this  process 
must,  in  every  case,  be  dependent  upon  that  principle  of  life,  by 
wliich  the  several  portions  of  each  organized  structure  are  dis- 
posed and  harmonized.  So  that  it  must  be  the  ruling  power  of 
each  body — the  mind  which  animates  it — by  which  the  relation 
of  the  parts  to  the  whole  must  be  determined.  When  we  speak 
of  Christ,  then,  as  giving  His  Body  for  our  food,  and  of  the 
building  up  of  the  Body  of  Christ  as  the  consequence,  it  is 
obvious  that  the  process  is  exactly  the  reverse  of  that  which 
happens  in  the  case  of  ordinaiy  nourishment.  Since  it  is  Christ's 
Body  which  is  built  uj) ;  in  Ilim,  and  not  in  us,  must  be  the 
informing  Spirit.  It  must  be  the  life  which  has  its  source  in 
Him,  from  which  "all  the  Body  by  joints  and  bands  having 
nourishment  ministered,  increaseth  unto  the  increase  of  God." 
"  i\Iy  body  lives  by  my  sjiirit ;  yours  by  your  spirit.  The  Body 
of  Christ  cannot  live  save  by  the  spirit  of  Christ."  ^  So  that 
though  Christ's  Body  is  orally  received,  yet  It  does  not  become 
part  of  us,  but  loe  become  part  of  Ilim  ;  lie  is  not  resolved,  as 
it  were,  into  the  structure  of  our  miiids,  but  we  pass,  on  the  con- 
trary, into  His  divine  organization.  The  sacramentuni  indeed, 
or  outward  part,  is  assimilated,  like  other  food,  to  the  body 
which  receives  it :  but  the  res  sacramenti  is  an  energizing  prin- 
cijile,  which  takes  up  and  quickens  that  upon  which  it  is  be- 
stowed. 


eat."  He  says  in  his  sermons,  "Transeunt  interfecti  in  corpus  unum 
EcclesifE :  cujua  Ecclesise  figuram  gerebat  I'etrus,  quando  ei  dictum  est, 
viactd  et  7n(iii(hica." — ^V(•)n.  iv.  19,  and  vide  cxxv.  9. 

'  S.  C'hrys.  in  Ep.  ad  Hebrajos,  cap.  x.  Horn.  xvii.  4,  p.  169. 

^  a.  Aug.  in  Joan.  Trac.  xxvi.  13. 


THE  HOLY  EUCHARIST.  291 

Now,  such  a  mode  of  operation  as  this  is  spiritual,  and  not 
carnal ;  and  addresses  itself,  not  to  the  bodily  organs,  but  to  the 
inner  man.  "  Spiritual  and  corporal  nourishment,"  says  a  strik- 
ing writer,  "  follow  contrary  laws :  in  corporal  nourishment  the 
nutriment  is  converted  into  the  substance  of  the  thing  nourish- 
ed :  but  in  the  nourishment  of  the  spiritual  Hfe,  the  thing  nou- 
rished is  converted  into  the  nature  of  the  thing  which  nourishes 
it,  and  of  its  nutriment ;  and  the  nutriment  is  not  changed,  but 
only  the  thing  nourished."  ^  That  such  should  be  the  process, 
therefore,  in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  shows  the  thing  received  not 
to  be  dead  Tuatter,  which  is  to  acquire  life  by  being  taken  into 
the  organization  of  the  receiver,  but  a  living  principle,  which 
has  power  to  absorb  and  organize  those  by  whom  it  is  partaken. 
And  this  is  the  manner  in  which  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  always 
described  by  ancient  writers  :  "  the  effect  of  participating  of  the 
Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  is  nothing  else  than  that  we  pass  into 
that  which  we  receive  :  "  ^  "  as  St.  Paul  says,  a  little  leaven  lea- 
veneth  the  whole  lump,  so  the  very  smallest  portion  of  the 
Eucharist  resolves  our  whole  body  into  itself,  and  fills  us  with 
its  own  energy."  ^  "  The  Body  "  {i.  e.  of  Our  Lord)  "  which  has 
been  rendered  immortal  by  Grod,  having  become  present  in  ours, 
transforms  and  changes  the  whole  of  it  to  itself."  *  Those  who 
thus  regard  it  could  not  have  suj)posed  that  it  was  the  nourish- 
ment of  the  body,  but  must  have  understood  its  real  nature  and 
spiritual  laws.  And  this  they  further  showed  by  founding  upon 
this  truth  two  other  important  doctrines ;  namely,  the  Unity  of 
the  Church ;  and  the  title  which  the  Church  herself  possessed 
to  be  regarded  as  a  portion  of  the  Eucharistic  sacrifice.  The 
Church's  Unity  depends  upon  the  oneness  of  that  Divine  Head, 
whose  spiritual  Body  it  becomes  through  the  Holy  Eucharist. 
"  The  Church  of  the  Saviour  is  one,  because  those  who  have 
believed  are  resolved  into  one  Body."  ^     "  And  the  unity  of  this 

^  Kaimundus  de  Sabunde,  Theol.  Naturalis,  285. 

2  S.  Leo,  Serm.  Ixiii.  7.  ^  S.  Cyril,  A.  iv.  365. 

^  S.  Greg.  Nyss.  Catech.  Orat.  37.     Vide  supra,  cap.  iv.  p.  72. 

^  Theodoret.  in  Psalm,  xcvi.  8. 

U2 


292  THE  BENEFITS  OF 

Body,"  says  St.  Augustin,  "  is  taught  us  by  our  sacrifice,  which 
the  Apostle  briefly  signified,  saying,  '  we  are  all  one  bread  and 
one  body.' "  ^  And  so  St.  Ignatius  :  "  one  Eucharist,  because 
one  Flesh  of  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  '  And  in  like  manner, 
because  the  mystical  Body  of  the  Lord  is  the  extension  of  His 
Body  natural,  does  the  Church  itself  become  a  part  of  the 
Eucharistic  sacrifice,  "Since  the  Church  is  His  owti  Body, 
she  learns  to  offer  up  herself  through  Him."  '' 

Since  it  is  allowed,  then,  that  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ 
act  in  a  spiritual,  and  not  a  physical  manner,  it  may  be  asked 
why  it  is  essential  to  affirm  their  real  Presence  in  the  Holy 
Eucharist,  and  why  it  is  not  enough  to  believe  merely  that 
Christ  Himself  enters  into  personal  relation  with  us  by  a  sjiiri- 
tual  power,  as  is  the  case  in  Baptism  ?  It  would  be  a  sufficient 
answer  that  we  are  taught  otherwise  in  Scripture,  and  that  a 
different  belief  prevailed  Ln  the  ancient  Church.  In  Baptism 
we  are  said  to  put  on  the  New  Man  Christ  Jesus,  and  by  His 
Spirit  to  be  engrafted  into  His  Body :  but  His  Body  and  Blood 
are  affirmed  to  be  really  present  in  the  Holy  Eucharist.  And 
hence  the  Church's  uniform  distinction,  that  Christ's  Body  may 
be  said  to  be  present  in  Baptism,  but  that  He  is  reallij  present 
in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  by  reason  of  the  Presence  of  His  Body 
and  Blood.  But  it  may  be  observed  further,  that  such  a  scheme 
of  doctrine  is  in  perfect  consonance  with  that  which  we  know 
respecting  the  fall  and  recovery  of  mankind.  For  is  it  not  the 
essential  characteristic  of  the  Christian  system,  that  it  dejiends 
on  those  two  men,  in  one  of  whom  humanity  fell,  while  it  was 
regenerated  in  the  other?  Does  not  this  imply  that  the  cure  of 
human  ill  must,  in  some  measure,  be  correspondent  to  its  cause  ? 
May  we  not  anticipate  the  gifts  of  grace  to  be  bestowed  in  a 
manner  which  is  analogous  to  the  incursions  of  sin?  Now,  in 
what  manner  is  corruption  propagated  among  men  ?  The  souls 
of  men   are  believed  to  be  each  a  separate  creation*  of  the 

'  Epis.  clxxxvii.  20.  ^  Ad  Philad.  4. 

3  S.  Aug.  de  Civit.  Dei,  x.  20. 

*  Vide  JJoctrine  of  the  Incarnation,  p.  H,  ed.  3rd ;  p.  34,  ed.  4th. 


THE  HOLY  EUCHAEIST.  293 

Supreme  Being ;  and  to  become  in  some  way  infected  with  that 
hereditary  taint,  which  is  perpetuated  through  the  propagation 
of  their  bodies.  If  it  be  affirmed,  then,  that  the  soul  cannot  be 
a  channel  throvigh  which  the  gift  of  Christ's  Presence  in  the 
Holy  Eucharist  can  affect  and  modify  the  whole  body,  how 
comes  it  that  a  man's  own  body  can  produce  such  effects  uj)on 
his  soul?  And  that  the  sanctified  Body  of  Christ  should  be 
employed  as  the  medium  of  benefit  to  the  souls  of  men,  is  evi- 
dently consistent  with  the  analogy,  which  looks  for  a  resem- 
blance between  the  poison  and  the  antidote.  For  are  they  not 
tainted  by  their  relation  to  that  corrupted  flesh,  which  they 
inherit  from  Adam  ? 

"  If  the  flesh  of  the  first  man,  made  poisonous  and  mortal, 
communicates  death  to  the  soul,  shall  not  the  Flesh  of  Christ, 
which  is  healthful  and  life-giving,  bestow  ujDon  it  life  and  safety? 
Therefore,  as  the  soul  contracts  all  its  ill  by  flesh,  it  ought  by 
flesh  to  receive  all  its  benefit.  If  it  is  to  be  freed  from  the  evil, 
which  came  to  it  by  the  flesh  of  the  first  man,  it  must  have 
society  and  union  with  the  Flesh  of  Christ,  the  Second  Man.  And 
as  by  the  single  flesh  of  the  first  man  all  souls  are  infected  and 
destroyed,  so  are  all  souls  washed,  cleansed,  and  quickened,  by 
the  Flesh  of  Christ.  As  the  flesh  of  the  first  man  is  the  store- 
house of  all  vices,  sins,  and  crimes,  so  all  virtues,  all  spiritual 
treasures,  and  all  blessings,  are  stored  uj)  in  the  Flesh  of  Christ. 
As  the  former  flesh  separates  the  soul  from  Grod,  and  unites  it 
with  Satan ;  so  the  Flesh  of  Christ  separates  it  from  Satan,  and 
unites  it  to  God.  For  as  Satan  lurks  in  the  flesh  of  the  first 
man,  so  the  Godhead  abides  in  the  Flesh  of  the  Second.  There- 
fore, when  the  soul  is  united  and  associated  with  the  Flesh  of 
Christ,  it  is  associated  and  united  with  the  Godhead.  And  as 
Satan  takes  possession  of  souls  by  the  flesh  of  Adam,  so  by  His 
own  Flesh  are  they  taken  possession  of  by  Christ."  ^ 

The  considerations  which  have  been  adduced,  supply  the 
explanation  of  another  point  of  great  moment— what  is  re- 
quisite on  the  part  of  the  receiver,  if  he  would  profit  by  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  Eucharist.  It  has  been  stated  that  this  sa- 
crament consists  of  two  parts,  an  outward  part,  which  supj^lies 

^  Eaimundus  de  Sabunde,  Tit.  290. 


294  THE  BENEFITS  OF 

nourishment  to  the  body,  an  inward  part,  which  supplies  nou- 
rishment to  the  souh  Now,  between  these  there  exists  a  certain 
analocjy,  so  that  as  the  bodily  functions  are  necessary  for  the 
profitable  reception  of  the  one,  so  those  of  the  soul  for  the  pro- 
fitable reception  of  the  other.  And  as  life  is  that  principle, 
without  which  the  body  cannot  profit  by  the  aliment  which  it 
receives,  so  neither  can  the  soul  profit  by  its  nourishment  except 
it  lives.  If  the  body  were  dead,  its  organs  would  be  unable  to 
assimilate  to  themselves  the  food  which  was  administered  to  it ; 
and  in  like  manner  would  the  soul's  food  be  unprofitable,  if  it 
were  dead  also.  But  it  was  observed  that  the  law,  according  to 
which  the  Body  of  Christ  sustains  the  soul,  was  the  converse  of 
that,  according  to  which  the  outward  elements  sustain  the  body. 
It  does  not  jass  into  our  spiritual  structure,  but  we  into  His; 
in  Him  lies  the  principle  of  life  ;  He  is  the  Head  of  the  Church, 
the  Saviour  of  the  Body.  So  that  from  Him  must  come  that 
life,  by  which  all  members  of  His  mystical  Body  are  quickened. 
And  so  we  read  in  Holy  Scripture.  To  the  Eternal  Father 
belongs  the  origin  of  life,  by  the  necessity  of  His  nature.  From 
Him  it  passes  co-eterually  to  the  Eternal  Son  of  His  love  by 
necessary  derivation ;  and  to  the  Son  Incarnate  by  voluntary 
gift.  For,  "as  the  Father  hath  life  in  Himself,  so  hath  He 
given  to  the  Son  to  have  life  in  Himself."  And  one  main  pur- 
pose of  St.  John's  Gospel  was  to  reveal  how  this  gift  is  extended 
from  the  Head  to  the  members.  "  These  are  written  that  ye 
might  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  and  that 
believing,  ye  might  have  life  through  His  name."  Such  is  His 
own  merciful  declaration,  "  I  am  come  that  they  might  have 
life ; "  "I  am  the  resurrection  and  the  life ; "  "I  am  the  way, 
the  truth,  and  the  life  ; "  and  the  evil  of  those  who  rejected  Him 
He  states  to  be,  "ye  will  not  come  to  Me,  that  ye  might  have 
life."  ' 

Such  is  the  manner  in  which  the  gift  of  life  is  communicated 
to  mankind ;   it  comes  through  the  intervention  of  the  one  Me- 

'  Vide  St.  John  xx.  31 ;  x.  10  ;  xi.  25 ;  xiv.  6 ;  v.  iO. 


THE  HOLY  EUCHAEIST.  295 

diator,  and  the  agency  of  His  Spirit :  for  "  if  any  man  have  not 
the  Spirit  of  Christ,  he  is  none  of  His.  And  if  Christ  be  in 
you,  the  body  is  dead  because  of  sin,  but  the  spirit  is  life  because 
of  righteousness."  So  that  when  Cornelius  and  his  friends  had 
been  marked  out  as  qualified  subjects  for  Baptism  by  the  super- 
natural descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  it  was  said,  "  then  hath  God 
also  to  the  Gentiles  granted  repentance  unto  life."  If  to  possess 
life,  therefore,  be  the  necessary  qualification  for  the  Holy  Eu- 
charist, the  preparation  must  be  to  be  united  with  Christ  by 
the  Spirit.  For  thus,  and  thus  only,  does  life  enter  into  the 
soul  of  man.  "  I  live,"  says  the  Apostle,  "  yet  not  I,  but  Christ 
liveth  in  me."  And  therefore  the  ordinance  of  Baptism,  wherein 
men  are  made  members  of  the  Body  of  Christ,  makes  them  par- 
takers also  of  His  life.  For  "  we  are  buried  with  Him  by  Bap- 
tism into  death,  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead 
by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  we  also  should  walk  in  new- 
ness of  lifey  And  "  if  we  be  dead  with  Christ,  we  believe  that 
we  shall  also  live  with  Him." 

On  this  circumstance  was  built  the  law  of  the  ancient  Church, 
that  the  first  requisite  for  profitable  participation  in  the  Holy 
Eucharist  was  the  sacrament  of  Baptism.  It  turns  upon  the 
same  principle,  upon  which  we  must  account  for  the  absence  of 
all  mention  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  between  the  time  of  the  Last 
Supper  and  the  day  of  Pentecost.  In  that  interval,  when  Our 
Lord's  death  was  most  recent,  and  the  mere  natural  acts  of 
memorial  would  have  been  most  in  place,  we  read  of  no  Eu- 
charist, because  that  spiritual  relation,  whereby  Christians  are 
bound  to  the  Body  of  Christ,  was  consequent  upon  the  gift  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.  It  was  requisite,  therefore,  that  Our  Lord's 
Humanity  should  first  occupy  that  new  place  which  it  took  in 
His  Ascension;  that  it  should  "  give  "  those  Pentecostal  "  gifts,"  ^ 
which  the  Incarnation  had  conferred  in  His  person  upon  man- 
hood ;  and  "  instruct  the  world  of  righteousness,"  ^  through  the 
mission  of  the  Comforter.  It  is  thus  that  the  effect  of  Our 
Lord's  Ascension  is  explained  by  St.  Cyril  in  a  passage  already 
^  Ephes.  iv.  8,  with  Psalm  Ixviii.  18.  -  St.  John  xvi.  8. 


296  THE  BENEFITS  OF 

referred  to.  When  speaking  of  Our  Lord's  words  to  Mary  Mag- 
dalen, "Toucli  ^le  not,  for  I  am  not  yet  ascended  to  My  Fa- 
ther : "  he  says,  Our  Lord 

"  forbids  the  approach  of  Mary,  because  she  had  not  yet  received 
the  Spirit,"  inasmuch  as  before  His  Ascension,  "  the  Spirit  had 
not  yet  been  given  to  mankind  by  the  Father  through  Him." 
And  "  hence,"  he  says,  "  has  the  Church  taken  its  pattern. 
Therefore  we  exclude  from  the  Holy  Tal)le  those  who  acknow- 
_  ledge  Our  Lord's  Divinity,  and  have  already  professed  the  faith, 
that  is,  those  who  are  catechumens,  but  have  not  yet  been  en- 
riched with  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  For  He  does  not  dwell 
in  those  who  are  not  yet  baptized.  But  when  they  have  been 
made  partakers  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  then  nothing  hinders  them 
from  touching  also  Our  Saviour  Christ.  Therefore  to  those  who 
desire  to  partake  of  the  Mystical  Eucharist,  the  ministers  of  the 
Divine  Mysteries  proclaim,  ^Iloly  tilings  for  holi/  persons,^  teach- 
ing that  the  participation  of  that  which  is  sacred  befits  those 
who  are  sanctified  by  the  Spirit."  ^ 

To  the  same  jiurpose  is  a  statement  of  Pope  Innocent,  when 
writing  against  the  Pelagians.  Those  persons,  he  says,  who 
maintain  that  children  "  without  regeneration "  have  that  life 
which  is  conferred  by  eating  the  Flesh  of  the  Son  of  !Man  and 
drinking  His  Blood,  "seem  to  me  to  wish  to  destroy  Baptism, 
since  they  proclaim  them  to  possess  that"  {i.e.  the  Flesh  of 
Clirist)  "  which  ought  not  to  be  conferred  ujion  them,  as  is 
believed,  except  through  Bajjtism."^  St.  Augustin,  among 
whose  letters  this  passage  is  preserved,  explains  it  to  mean, 
that  to  eat  the  Flesh  of  the  Son  of  INIan  and  drink  His  Blood, 
is  a  thing  "  which  none  certainly  except  the  baptized  can  do."  ^ 
And  so  he  says  to  Julianus,  "whether  you  will  or  no,  you  are 
compelled  to  admit  that  it  is  to  the  regenerate  that  this  food 
and  this  cup  belongs."  * 

Baptism,  then,  is  the  first  qualification  for  the  Holy  Eu- 
charist ;  but  it  is  the  first  only.  Its  ]mrpose  is  to  establish  a 
spiritual  connexion  between  the  soul  and  the  Humanity  of  the 

'  S.  Cyril,  A.  in  Joan.  lib.  xii.  vol.  iv.  p.  1086. 

*  S.  Aug.  Epis.  clxxxii.  5.  ^  lb.  Epis.  clxxxvi.  29. 

*  Operia  Imp.  c.  Jul.  iii.  88. 


THE  HOLY  EUCHARIST.  297 

Second  Adam,  whereby  we  may  be  made  members  of  His  Mys- 
tical Body,  and  thus  be  engrafted  into  the  Divine  nature.  But 
if  we  sin,  as  all  men  sin,  after  Ba^otism,  this  connexion  is  relaxed, 
if  it  is  not  broken.  It  is  relaxed  even  by  those  perpetual  weak- 
nesses to  which  the  best  ^  men  are  liable,  and  which  are  inse- 
pai-able  from  our  fallen  nature,  until  the  effects  of  concupiscence 
are  done  away  in  death,  as  its  guilt  was  done  away  by  Baptism. 
It  is  as  a  remedy  against  these  daily  incursions'  of  sin,  that  Our 
Lord  has  given  us  His  Prayer  as  a  daily  means  of  seeking  for- 
giveness. "  On  account  of  those  sins  of  men,  which  are  to  be 
borne  with,  and  which  the  less  they  are,  are  so  much  the  more 
frequent,  God  has  appointed  that  during  the  time  when  mercy 
can  be  found,  there  shall  be  in  His  Church  this  daily  medicine, 
that  we  should  say,  '  forgive  us  our  debts,  as  we  forgive  our 
debtors.'  With  these  words  we  may  wash  our  faces  and  come 
to  the  altar ;  with  these  words  we  may  wash  our  faces,  and  com- 
municate in  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ."'^  St.  Ambrose  adds 
the  reading  of  Scripture  ("the  Apostolical  food,"  as  he  calls  it) 
as  a  perpetual  preparation:  "You  have  the  Apostolical  food, .... 
eat  it  first,  that  you  may  afterwards  come  to  the  food  of  Christ, 
to  the  food  of  the  Lord's  Body,  to  the  feast  of  the  Sacrament,  to 
that  cup  by  which  the  affections  of  the  faithful  are  intoxicated."^ 
But  besides  those  habitual  defects  which  continually  require 
to  be  remedied — for  we  are  "  washed  once  in  Baptism ;  we  are 
daily  washed  by  prayer  "  * — there  are  also  those  positive  acts  of 
transgression,  against  which  we  pray  in  the  Litany,  under  the 
title  of  "  deadly  sin."  The  effect  of  these,  as  their  name  implies, 
is  to  break  asunder  that  connexion  with  Christ  on  which  the 
life  of  the  soul  is  dependent,  and  therefore  to  disqualify  men  for 
the  profitable  receiving  of  the  Holy  Eucharist.  For  "  no  one," 
says  St.  Ambrose,  "  receives  the  food  of  Christ  until  he  has  been 
first  healed."  °     And  since  these  evils  separate  men  from  Christ, 

^  "  Non  vobis  dico,  quia  sine  peccato  hie  vivetis ;  sed  sunt  venialia, 
sine  quibus  vita  ista  non  est." — S.  Aug.  de  Symbolo,  see.  14.  Vide  in 
Pnalm.  cxviii.  Serni.  iii.  sec.  2,  3. 

'^  S.  Aug.  Sermo  xvii.  5.  ^  In  Psalm,  cxviii.  Serm.  xv.  sec.  28. 

••  S.  Aug.  de  Symbolo,  sec.  14.  *  Ex.  Evang.  Luc.  lib.  vi.  70. 


298  THE  BENEFITS  OF 

they  put  them  out  of  a  state  of  acceptance  or  justification.  For 
tliough  the  gift  of  foi'giveness  was  purchased  hy  the  one  sacrifice 
of  Christ,  yet  its  application  depends  upon  the  imparting  of  the 
Divine  justice  ;  "  not  of  that  justice  with  which  God  is  just,  but 
of  that  which  God  gives  to  men,  that  men  may  be  just  through 
God."  ^  Now,  when  the  life  of  the  soul  has  been  forfeited  through 
sin,  it  cannot  be  recovered  by  our  own  efi'orts,  but  only  through 
His  gift  by  whom  it  was  originally  bestowed.  So  that  there 
would  be  no  such  cure  for  this  evil,  as  the  analogy  of  the  Chris- 
tian Covenant  requires,  unless  God  had  "left  power  to  His 
Church  to  absolve  all  sinners."  ^  For  by  the  Church's  office, 
bj'  the  ministry  of  absolution,  and  the  power  of  the  keys,  the 
relation  of  man  to  Christ  is  renewed,  even  as  it  was  originally 
bestowed  in  Holy  Baptism.  "  Everywhere  is  the  order  of  the 
mystery  preserved,"  says  St.  Ambrose,  "  that  first  the  medicine 
should  be  administered  to  men's  wounds  by  the  remission  of 
sins,  and  afterwards  the  food  of  the  celestial  table  should  abound 
for  them."  ^  It  was  understood,  of  course,  that  repentance  and 
faith,  as  well  as  confession,  ^\ere  needed  on  the  part  of  the 
offender,  but  the  idea  that  after  the  commission  of  deadly  sin, 
men  might  restore  themselves  to  their  position  in  the  Body  of 
Christ  by  an  act  of  their  own  minds,  without  the  intervention 
of  the  Chuixh's  office,  is  wholly  at  variance  with  the  belief  of 
the  ancient  Church.  "  Three  ways  there  are,"  says  St.  Angus- 
tin,  "  in  which  sins  are  remitted  in  the  Church ;  in  Baptism,  in 
prayer,  in  the  greater  humiliation  of  penitence."  And  this 
penitence  was  always  imposed  by  the  Church's  sentence :  "  take 
care,"  he  writes  to  the  Catechumens,  "not  to  commit  those 
things  for  which  it  is  necessary  that  you  should  be  separated 
iiom  Christ's  Body  :  from  which  event  may  God  deliver  you."  * 

'  S.  August,  in  Joan.  Tract,  xxvi.  1. 

-  Office  for  Visitation  of  Sick. 

^  S.  Ambrose  Ex.  Evang.  Luc.  lib.  vi.  71. 

'  De  Symbolo,  15,  14.  The  Church  of  England  supposes  remitting  grace 
to  be  conferred  tlirough  the  general  Absolution  in  the  Daily  Prayers,  and 
in  the  Communion  Ortice  ;  though  she  has  provided  a  form  of  more  au- 
thoritative efficacy  for  the  case  of  those  who  have  made  specific  confes- 


THE  HOLY  EUCHAEIST.  299 

Baptism,  then,  is  that  act  by  which  Almighty  God  vouchsafes 
to  qualify  men  for  the  Holy  Eucharist ;  and  their  right  is  main- 
tained by  a  life  of  habitual  confession,  meditation,  and  prayer. 
Neither  can  this  right  be  regained  by  those  who  fall  into  deadly 
sin  after  Baptism,  except  through  that  authority  which  it  has 
pleased  God  to  entrust  to  His  Church,  and  which  is  exercised 
through  priestly  absolution.  Thus  do  men  acquire  and  retain 
that  relation  to  Christ,  on  which  depends  the  life  of  the  soul. 
Thus  does  every  qualification  for  the  Holy  Eucharist  resolve 
itself  finally  into  one,  that  the  receiver  must  continue  to  hold 
communion  with  God  through  the  Spirit.  And  therefore  there 
can  be  no  profitable  Eucharist,  unless  men  are  members  of  that 
true  Church,  which  is  cemented  into  one  mystical  Body  by  the 
Spirit.  So  that  the  first  disciples  are  described  as  men  who 
"  continued  steadfastly  in  the  Apostles'  doctrine  and  fellowship, 
and  in  breaking  of  bread  and  in  prayers."  For- "  how  can  men 
suppose  that  Christ  is  with  their  assemblies,  if  they  are  assem- 
bled out  of  Christ's  Church  ?  "  ^  The  elements,  indeed,  may  be 
truly  consecrated,  but  how  can  men  profit  by  the  gift,  unless 
they  are  partakers  of  that  heavenly  life  which  flows  forth  from 
the  Head  into  all  members  of  His  Body  ?  The  Divine  food  may 
be  administered,  but  where  will  be  the  capacity  to  be  nourished '? 
"  There  is  nothing,"  therefore,  "  which  a  Christian  ought  so  much 
to  fear  as  to  be  separated  from  the  Body  of  Christ.  For  if  he  is 
separated  from  the  Body  of  Christ  he  is  not  a  member  of  His ; 
if  he  is  not  Christ's  member  he  is  not  animated  by  His  Spirit. 
And  '  if  any  man  have  not  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  he  is  none  of 
His.' "  ^  "  The  faith,  therefore,  of  the  Church  must  first  be 
inquired  into,  in  which  if  Christ  dwells,  it  must  be  accepted 
undoubtingly."  ^  And  when  it  is  thus  accepted,  all  the  indi- 
vidual graces — faith,  hope,  and  charity — find  their  appropriate 
object  in  the  Eucharist,  which  it  is  authorized  to  convey.     "  He, 

sion.    Vide  an  Art.  on  Maskell  on  Absolution,  Christian  Remembrancer, 
A.D.  1849. 

'  S.  Cyprian  de  Unitate,  p.  183. 

^  S.  August,  in  Joan.  Tract,  xxvii.  6. 

^  S.  Ambros.  Expos.  Evan.  Luc.  lib.  vi.  68. 


800  THE  BENEFITS  OF 

who  wislies  to  live,  finds  in  it  where  he  may  live — he  finds 
whence  he  may  live.  Let  him  approach,  let  him  believe,  let 
him  be  incorporated,  that  he  may  be  quickened.  Let  him  not 
shrink  from  that  which  is  the  bond  of  the  members ;  let  him 
not  be  a  corrupt  member,  which  deserves  to  be  cut  off,  or  a 
deformed  member,  of  which  men  are  ashamed ;  let  him  be  fair, 
fit,  healthful ;  let  him  adhere  to  the  Body ;  let  him  live  to  God 
by  God's  lielj^ ;  let  him  labour  now  on  earth,  that  hereafter  he 
may  reign  in  heaven."  ^ 

Secondlj^ — So  much  respecting  the  first  caution,  that  the 
process  by  which  Christ's  Body  and  Blood  act  upon  the  receiver, 
is  spiritual  and  not  physical.  A  second  remains,  that  the  union 
which  is  thus  effected  between  the  receiver  and  Christ  is  ac- 
cording to  the  law  of  love,  not  the  law  of  personality.  It  has 
been  stated  to  be  the  ultimate  purpose  of  the  Holy  Eucharist, 
to  bring  about  so  intimate  an  union  between  Clu'ist  and  His 
peojole,  that  they  may  be  "  members  of  His  Body,  of  His  Flesh, 
and  of  His  Bones."  Now  there  may  seem  a  danger,  lest  this 
crowning  truth  of  the  Christian  system  should  border  too  closely 
upon  the  error  of  Pantheism.  For  let  the  individual  responsi- 
bility of  man  be  forgotten,  and  his  nature  be  supposed  to  be 
altogether  swallowed  up  in  that  of  God,  and  what  results  but 
a  bewildering  confusion  of  all  substances ;  and  a  belief  either 
that  the  Deity  is  everything,  or  that  nothing  is  Divine?  Against 
this  error  therefore  it  is  necessary  to  guard ;  and  to  point  out, 
not  only  that  the  ancient  belief  of  the  Church  has  no  tendency 
towards  Pantheism,  but  that  it  is  the  very  antidote  by  which 
that  tendency  is  corrected. 

Pantheism  is  that  system  of  thought,  which  loses  sight  of  the 
wide  gulf  which  separates  God  and  man — the  Creator  and  the 
created — the  finite  and  the  Infinite.  There  are  two  sides,  there- 
fore, from  which  this  error  may  arise  ;  either  the  Creator  may  be 
brought  down  to  the  level  of  His  works,  or  the  creature  lifted 
up  to  the  level  of  the  Creator.  The  first  has  been  the  more  be- 
^  S.  August,  in  Joan.  Tract,  xxvi.  13. 


THE  HOLY  EUCHAEIST.  301 

setting  error  of  ancient,  the  last  of  modern  days.  Those  philo- 
sophers who  supposed  immensity  alone  to  make  up  the  nature  of 
God,  had  no  ilieans  whereby  to  discriminate  Him  from  that 
material  creation,  to  which  our  thoughts  can  assign  no  limits. 
This  was  the  inherent  error  of  those  Cosmogonies,  which  were 
invented  by  the  philosophers  of  the  Ionian  school,  and  which 
maintained  their  ground  in  a  measure,  even  after  Socrates  had 
laid  a  truer  and  deeper  foundation  for  philosophy  in  the  moral 
consciousness  of  man.  Now,  as  this  was  to  bring  down  God  to 
the  level  of  His  works,  so  a  corresponding  effect  has  followed, 
when  men  have  assigned  those  conditions  to  the  loorks  of  God, 
which  are  characteristic  of  the  Creator.  When  it  is  laid  down 
as  a  philosophical  axiom,  that 

"  Nature  is  but  a  name  for  an  effect. 
Whose  cause  is  God," 

it  would  seem  to  be  implied,  that  the  order  of  the  world  arises 

as  a  necessary  result  from  the  energy  of  the  Supreme  Essence, 

which   must   needs   show   itseK,  according   to   the   law   of  its 

existence,  in  these  material  results.     Now  this  is  really  the  law, 

according  to  which  the  Ever-blessed  Trinity  exists.     No  cause 

can  be  assigned  for  the  existence  of  the  Eternal  Father,  save  the 

necessity  of  His  nature ;  the  Only-Begotten  Son  is  the  Eternal 

Son  of  the  Father  by  necessary  derivation ;  the  Holy  Ghost  of 

necessity  proceeds  eternally  from  them  both :  this  is  the  law  of 

their  adorable  nature,  whereby  the  manner  is  inseparable  from 

the  fact  of  their  existence.     To  suppose,  then,  that  the  creation 

exists  by  necessity  likewise,  that  it  is  nothing  more  than  the 

effect  of  that  creative  energy  which  is  inseparable  from  Godhead  ; 

that  the  Deity  could  not  choose  but  exhibit  Himself  in  the 

beings  which  He  has  created — is  to  place  the  works  of  God  too 

near  to  their  Maker,  and  to  assign  conditions  to  the  finite,  wliich 

are  characteristic  of  the  Infinite.    This  has  been  the  tendency  of 

various  modern  systems  of  philosophy,  particularly  in  Germany, 

and  has  been  encouraged  by  that  analogy  which  is  observed  to 

exist  between  the  Supreme  Essence  and  the  thinking  principle 


802  THE  BENEFITS  OF 

Now  this  system,  under  both  its  forms,  has  always  found  its 
contradiction  in  the  Chui'ch's  belief,  that  the  Infinite  Essence 
has  the  true  character  of  a  Personal  Being.  The  creation, 
therefore,  does  not  exist  by  any  law  of  necessity,  but  by  the  vnll 
of  God.  It  was  when  His  unbounded  love  moved  Him  to 
come  forth  from  the  abyss  of  His  infinite  nature,  that  He  called 
into  existence  Heaven  and  earth.  And  yet  it  is  necessary  to 
provide  for  that  relation  between  the  Creator  and  His  creatures, 
for  which  nature  f)erpetually  yearned,  and  which  revelation 
positively  asserts.  So  that  it  seems  impossible  to  guard 
effectually  against  that  perverted  notion,  which  would  suppose 
finite  minds  to  be  a  necessary  efflux  from  the  Infinite  original, 
unless  we  can  assign  some  other  principle,  according  to  which 
this  relation  may  exist.  And  such  a  principle  it  is,  which  is 
exhibited  in  the  Incarnation  of  Christ.  The  Second  Person  in 
the  Blessed  Trinity,  God  the  "Word,  vouchsafed  to  enter  into 
relation  with  the  beings  whom  He  had  created,  through  the 
taking  of  the  manhood  into  God.  Through  this  act,  the  key  to 
all  mysteries,  God  and  man,  the  Creator  and  the  creature,  were 
brought  into  relation.  Thus  did  Eternal  Goodness  introduce  a 
new  harmony  into  the  world,  which  it  had  made ;  and  united 
men  by  the  law  of  love,  without  superseding  the  law  of 
personality.  So  that  the  Deity  is  not  lowered  to  the  level  of 
His  works,  nor  the  creature  lifted  up  to  the  Creator ;  but  two 
natures — the  Infinite  and  the  finite — have  been  joined  together, 
in  order  that  the  perfections  of  the  one  might  correct  the 
deficiencies  of  the  other. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation,  then,  as  being  a  perpetual 
witness  that  by  supernatural  gift  alone  can  God  and  man  be 
united,  is  the  best  safeguard  against  confounding  the  Creator 
with  His  works.  Neither  does  it  interfere  in  any  way  with  the 
personality  of  those  inferior  beings,  wliose  common  nature  it  has 
purified  and  exalted.  Eor  the  bond,  by  which  the  new  Head  of 
man's  race  binds  His  members  to  one  another  and  to  Himself,  is 
that  bond  of  love  which  has  its  origin  in  His  own  nature.  It  was 
shown  that  the  process  by  which  the  Humauity  of  Our  Lord  is 


THE  HOLY  EUCHAEIST.  803 

communicated  to  men  is  spiiitual,  and  not  physical.  Now  love 
is  the  principle  hy  which  spiritual  essences  act  upon  each  other ; 
and  therefore  love  must  supply  the  conditions  on  which  the 
Incarnate  Head  must  be  related  to  His  members.  And  since 
sacraments  are  the  channels,  by  which  those  gifts  which  were 
bestowed  in  the  Incarnation  upon  humanity  at  large,  are 
extended  to  each  individual,  therefore  their  effect  must  be  to 
impart  that  principle  of  love,  which  the  one  Mediator  com- 
municates to  His  brethren.  But  since  the  sj^iritual  essence  of 
man  has  suffered  detriment,  in  some  inscrutable  manner,  from 
that  corrupted  nature  which  binds  it  to  Adam,  it  must  receive 
some  correspondent  benefit  from  the  presence  of  that  new  nature 
which  was  purified  in  Christ.  There  is  nothing  in  this  sup- 
position which  supersedes  the  efficacy  of  that  principle  of  love, 
which  has  its  dwelling  in  God,  and  rejDroduces  itself  in  those 
who  are  united  to  Him ;  neither  does  it  militate  against  that 
individual  responsibility,  which  is  bound  up  in  each  man's 
personal  consciousness.  It  does  but  suggest  the  mean  whereby 
love  is  applied,  and  whereby  conscience  acquires  increased 
responsibility.  For  both  these  effects  follow  from  that  fact  of 
the  Incarnation,  whereby  man's  nature  was  purified  by  the 
taking  it  into  God.  And  both,  therefore,  are  connected  with 
that  sacramental  Presence  of  Christ,  of  which  the  Incarnation  is 
the  cause.  For  it  is  because  Christ  is  very  Man,  and  the  acts  of 
His  ministers  are  the  actions  of  their  Head,  and  consecration  is 
a  real  transaction,  and  His  Flesh  and  Blood  are  truly  present, 
that  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  so  momentous  a  blessing. 


804 


CHAPTER      XIII. 

PRACTICAL   CONCLUSIONS. 

The  preceding  chajiters  have  been  addressed  to  those  who 
recognize  the  interpretive  office  of  the  Primitive  Church,  and 
suppose  themselves  to  retain  every  fundamental  principle  which 
she  admitted.  Such  has  always  been  the  profession  of  the 
(Jhurch  of  England,  as  avowed  in  her  Canons  and  Formularies ; 
and  her  most  approved  writers  have  constantly  declared,  that 
they  believed  her  to  approach  the  nearest  of  any  Christian 
community  upon  earth,  to  the  primitive  model.  If  there  should 
be  any  point,  therefore,  of  vital  importance — anything  which 
goes  beyond  those  variable  questions  of  external  regulation, 
wliich  may  fairly  be  left  to  every  age  and  nation — anything 
affecting  the  foundation  of  her  faith  or  practice,  in  which  our 
Church  has  departed  from  the  maxims  of  Antiquity,  her  own 
principles  demand  that  it  should  be  examined  and  amended. 

Now  surely  such  a  case  arises  from  the  comj)arison  of  our 
present  practice  with  the  usage  of  Antiquity.  Not  only  was  the 
Holy  Eucharist  daily  ministered  in  the  Primitive  Church,  but 
its  staple  worship  was  the  Eucharistic  Sacrifice.  Congregations 
wliich  met  from  week  to  week  without  this  act,  and  Churches  in 
which  it  was  solemnized  once  a  quarter,  or  even  once  a  month, 
were  wholly  unknown.  The  liberty  of  individual  Churches  was 
vindicated  by  two  great  \vriters,  St.  Jerome  and  St.  Augustin, 
against  those  who  demanded  uniformity  in  indifferent  matters, 
but  the  precepts  of  Scripture,  and  tlie  rules  of  the  Universal 
Church,  were  supposed  by  both  of  them  to  be  binding  upon  all 
Christians.  And  by  the  last,  St.  Augustin  explains  himself  to 
mean  not  merely  those  things  which  had  been  enacted  by  the 
Apostles  or  their  successors  in  Council,  but  those  which  were 


PEACTICAL  CONCLUSIONS.  805 

fixed  by  the  practice '  of  the  Church  throughout  the  world.  The 
present,  therefore,  is  plainly  an  instance  of  discrepancy,  which 
according  to  primitive  rules  admits  of  no  justification,  since  it  is  at 
variance  in  a  most  grave  and  momentous  particular,  not  only 
with  the  universal  judgment  of  the  ancient  Church,  but  also 
with  the  acknowledged  practice  of  the  Holy  Apostles. 

It  will  hardly  be  disputed  that  the  example  of  the  Apostles, 
during  that  short  time  for  which  we  have  any  detailed  statement 
of  their  actions,  shows  a  daily  ^  Eucharist  to  be  the  normal 
condition  of  the  Church's  existence.  In  the  less  full  account  of 
somewhat  later  transactions,  it  is  manifest,  likewise,  that  those 
who  were  collected  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  "  came  together 
to  break  bread."  Those,  therefox'e,  who  reject  the  authority  of 
the  ancient  Church,  might  be  expected  to  feel  the  more  bound  to 
a  rule,  which,  according  to  the  models  left  us  in  Scripture,  is 
without  exception.  But  what  was  the  practice  of  the  Primitive 
Church  ?  It  is  commonly  alleged  that  as  the  first  fervour  of 
devotion  passed  away,  the  frequency  with  which  the  Holy 
Eucharist  was  administered  diminished  also,  so  that  since  the 
moral  state  of  ancient  times  was  not  likely  to  be  very  different 
from  our  own,  it  might  be  anticipated  that  the  ancient  and 
modern  rules  respecting  the  use  of  this  sacrament,  would  be  nearly 
coincident.  And  so  much  must  be  admitted,  that  since  the 
Christian  communities  consisted,  in  the  first  instance,  principally 
either  of  slaves,  or  of  persons  whose  rank  in  life  did  not  afford 
unbroken  leisure,  such  daily  assemblies  as  those  at  Jerusalem 
can  hardly  have  been  possible.  It  is  not  unlikely,  therefore,  that 
while  the  Gospel  was  as  yet  emerging  from  the  lowest  ranks,  the 
ministration  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  may  have  been  almost  con- 
fined to  the  Lord's  Day.  Such  would  seem  to  have  been  the 
case  among  those  whom  Pliny  ^  interrogated  in  Asia  JNIinor : 
and  though  Justin  Martyr  may  have  been  referring  only  to  the 

.  1  "Ex  auctoritate  divinarum  Scripturarum  et  universse  Ecclesise,  quse 
toto  orbe  ditfunclitur,  consensione." — S.  Aug.  Ep.  Iv.  27  ;  vide  Id.  sec. 
35,  Epis.  liv.  1 ;  and  S.  Jerom.  Ep.  lii.  ad  Lucinium,  vol.  iv.  pt.  2, 
p.  579. 

2  Acts  ii.  46.  2  "Stato  die."     Ep.  lib.  x.  97. 


306  PKACTICAL  CONCLUSIONS. 

more  solemn  assemblies,  yet  he  makes  no  mention  of  worship, 
except  on  the  Lord's  Day.^  Less  than  this,  however,  was  never 
tolerated ;  neither  does  there  seem  to  have  been  any  ancient 
Church,  ho.vever  circumstanced,  which  thought  that  its  Sunday 
solemnity  could  be  complete,  without  the  celebration  of  the 
Christian  mystery. 

And  no  sooner  had  the  first  period  of  oppression  past  away — 
no  sooner  did  the  Church  include  persons  of  leisure  in  her  ranks, 
and  obtain  such  toleration  as  sufficed  for  the  performance  of 
common  worship — than  she  returned  in  great  measure  to  the  rule 
of  primitive  observance.  No  doubt,  as  her  numbers  increased, 
there  must  have  been  many  who  could  not  come  together  more 
than  once  or  twice  a  week,  and  it  seems  to  have  been  in 
reference  to  such  parties  that  we  hear  of  more  solemn  assemblies 
on  Saturday  and  Sunday,^  and  on  the  festivals  of  the  Martyrs ; 

^  Apol.  i.  67. 

^  Vide  Apost.  Const,  ii.  59.  Socrates  speaks  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  on 
Saturday  as  almost  universal,  Lib.  v.  22,  and  again  of  Saturday  and  Sun- 
day, as  the  days  wherein  assemblies  were  usually  held  in  the  Churches 
of  Constantinople,  about  the  time  of  S.  Chrysostom.  But  we  learn  from 
S.  Chrysostom's  Homilies  at  Constantinople,  that  the  Holy  Eucharist  was 
offered  there  daily,  and  he  speaks  of  men  as  daily  entering  where  it  was 
celebrated. — In  Epist.  mJ  Hehr.  Horn.  xvii.  3,  4.  So  that  there  must 
evidently  have  been  a  daily  Eucharist ;  and  the  statement  of  Socrates 
must  refer  only  to  the  days  of  general  attendance.  This  may  account 
for  the  circumstance,  that  Cassian,  as  well  as  the  Apostolical  Constitu- 
tions, speak  of  tlie  Holy  Eucharist  as  solemnized  especially  on  these 
days,  while  they  yet  contain  allusions,  which  imply  it  to  have  been 
more  frequently  ministered.  Cassian  says  that  the  monks  in  Egypt  held 
no  meetings  in  the  day,  except  on  Saturday  and  Sunday,  when  the  Holy 
Eucharist  was  ministered  at  nine  o'clock. — I  list  it.  iii.  2  ;  Bib.  fat.  vii. 
24.  Yet  he  alludes  himself  to  the  habit  of  communicating  daily,  Coll. 
vii.  30  ;  and  he  implies  that  in  some  cases  the  prayers  before  day  were 
followed  by  the  "  celehritas  jl/^i.s.sa;  ,• "  Instit.  ii.  7.  (This  agrees  with 
TertuUian's  statement:  "sacravientum  antducanis  cMihus  sumimiis." — 
T)e  Cor.  Mil.  3.)  The  Apostolical  Constitutions  order  Saturday  and  Sun- 
day to  be  kept,  the  one  in  memory  of  the  Creation,  the  other  of  the 
Kesurrection,  vii.  23.  On  those  days,  therefore,  the  people  are  told  to 
come  especially  to  Church,  and  it  is  said  that  on  Sunday  the  sacrifice  is 
always  oHered,  ii.  59.  But  when  the  Eucharistic  service  is  described  in 
the  same  work,  there  is  nothing  to  intimate  that  it  was  confined  to  these 
days.  An  .account  is  given  of  the  manner  in  which  the  Church  should 
meet,  but  without  anything  which  fixes  it  to  one  day  more  than  another ; 
and  after  the  saying  of  prayers,  comes  the  direction,  "then  let  the  sacri- 


PRACTICAL  CONCLUSIONS.  307 

but  the  daily  reception  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  was  a  prevalent 
custom  among  devout  people,  nor  is  there  a  single  distinguished 
man,  by  whom  any  other  rule  is  recommended.  It  is  probable 
that  it  prevailed  before  the  end  of  the  second  century,  when 
Tertullian's  reference  to  those  who  scrupled  to  receive  the  Holy 
Eucharist  on  Wednesday  and  Friday  (the  two  station  days), 
proves  that  this  ordinance  was  celebrated  during  the  week;^ 
and  his  own  comparison  of  Our  Lord's  Body  with  daily  bread, 
would  imply  its  daily  celebration.^  Moreover,  he  states  that  it 
was  offered,  as  we  know  from  St.  Cyprian  (Ep.  34,  and  37)  to 
have  been  the  case  during  the  next  century,  on  the  festivals  of 
the  martyrs.^  In  the  third  century  the  testimony  of  St. 
Cyprian  is  express,  that  the  custom  of  the  Christian  priesthood 
was  "to  celebrate  sacrifices  daily  to  God."*  For  "we  daily 
receive  the  Eucharist  as  our  saving  food."^  And  St.  Hippolytus 
had  spoken  of  it  somewhat  earlier  in  the  century,  as  "daily 
prepared  on  the  mystical  and  divine  Table."® 

The   more   full   information    which  we   have  respecting  the 
fourth  century,  shows  how  universal  the  usage  had  then  become. 

fice  be  offered,"  &c. — Ap.  Con.  ii.  57 ;  and  again,  viii.  5.  And  there  are 
directions  also  to  offer  it  in  the  cemeteries,  and  at  funerals,  vi.  30.  And 
we  hear  of  S.  Ambrose's  visiting  a  private  person  of  distinction,  "  to  offer 
the  sacrifice  in  her  house." — Life,  by  Paulinus,  p.  3.  Epiphanius,  indeed, 
speaks  of  "solemn  assemblies"  as  instituted  by  the  Apostles  four  days 
a  week  (Adv.  Hxr.  iii.  2,  22),  and  there  were  places,  S.  Augustin  tells 
us  (Epis.  liv.  2),  where  the  oblation  was  only  offered  once  or  twice  a 
week.  The  statement  quoted  from  Cassian  makes  it  not  improbable  that 
he  referred  to  places  in  Egypt ;  and  Socrates  says  the  mysteries  were  not 
celebrated  on  Wednesday  or  Friday  at  Alexandria — an  omission,  which 
he  attributes  to  the  allegorizing  tendencies  of  Origen,  v.  22.  But  so  long 
as  the  practice  of  reservation  continued,  this  was  no  hindrance  to  constant 
participation ;  and  S.  Basil  speaks  of  the  reservation  of  the  elements,  as 
particularly  prevalent  in  Egypt,  Epis.  93.  Nor  did  reservation  afford 
the  means  of  reception  only,  but  of  celebration  also.  In  the  East,  the 
oblation  was  not  made  in  Lent  except  on  Saturday  and  Sunday  (Council 
of  Laodicsea,  Canon  49) ;  but  by  the  fifty-second  Canon  of  the  Council  in 
TruUo,  the  service  was  to  be  performed  with  the  preconsecrated  elements. 

■*  De  Oratione,  14.  ^  De  Oratione,  6. 

3  De  Corona  Militum,  3.  *  Epis.  liv.  p.  77. 

*  De  Oratione  Domin.  p.  192.    Vide  Ep.  Ivi.  p.  87. 

«  Gallandi,  ii.  488. 

X  2 


308  PRACTICAL  CONCLUSIONS. 

Eusebius  seems  to  be  speaking  of  the  Church  at  large,  when  he 
"says  "tliat  the  Christians  "  celebrated  a  daily  memorial  of  Our 
Lord's  Body  and  Blood."'  St.  Gaudentius,"  Bishop  of  Brescia 
in  Italy,  speaks  of  "  the  representation  of  Christ's  Passion  "  as 
"  daily  "  received  ;  and  his  metropolitan,  St.  Ambrose,  writes — 
"Christ  is  ministered  to  me  every  day."^  He  is  contrast- 
ing the  Holy  Eucharist  with  the  manna  in  the  desert : 
"Christ  is  my  food,  Christ  is  my  drink;  the  Flesh  of  God 
is  my  food,  the  Blood  of  God  is  my  drink."  "That  true 
Bread  from  heaven,  the  Father  has  reserved  for  me.  For  me 
has  that  Bread  of  God  descended  from  heaven,  which  gives  life 
to  this  world.  It  did  not  descend  for  the  Jews,  it  did  not 
descend  for  the  Synagogue  ;  but  it  has  descended  for  the  Church." 
"  Why  do  you  ask  Him,  Jew,  to  give  you  that  Bread  which  He 
gives  to  all,  which  He  gives  daili/  i"'* 

That  such  was  the  practice  of  the  African  Church,  as  well  as 
of  the  Donatists,  may  be  inferred  from  the  approving  notice  of 
St.  Optatus  ^'  respecting  the  latter :  while  in  Bethlehem  St. 
Jeromg  speaks  of  himself  as  "  drinking  Christ's  Blood  daily " 
"in  His  Sacrifices."*'  His  statement,  that  daily  participation 
was  the  especial  rule  of  the  Roman  and  Spanish  Churches,' 
would  seem  to  imply,  indeed,  that  the  custom  was  not  equally 
universal  in  the  East.  And  this  is  confirmed  by  the  censure 
passed  both  by  St.jyirysoiitom,'*  and  by  the  writer  of  the  work 
"  De  Sacramentis,"  ^  upon  those  who  were  accustomed  to  receive 
only  once  a  year.  But  this  negligence,  though  frequent,  was  not 
universal '°  even  in  the  East ;  so  that  though  many  abstained 
from  daily  participation,  the  public  sacrifice  of  the  Church  may 

'  Demonst.  Evang.  ii.  10,  p.  37. 

*  "Quotidie  et  gerentes  in  manibus,  ore  etiam  sumentes." — Bib.  Pal. 
Max.  V.  947. 

■■<  In  Psalm,  cxviii.  Senn.  xviii.  26.  *  S.  Ambrose,  U.  S.  27,  28. 

^  S.  Optatus  de  Schism.  Don.  ii.  12  : — "quotidie  a  vobis  sacrificia  con- 
diuntur." 

••  Hieron.  Hedebiffi,  Q.  2,  vol.  iv.  part  i.  p.  172. 

'  Epis.  lii.  Ad.  Lucinium,  vol.  iv.  part  ii.  p.  579. 

"  In  Ephes.  Horn.  iii.  4.  *  S.  Ambros.  de  Sac.  v;  4,  25. 

"*  S.  Aug.  De  Serm.  in  Monte,  ii.  26,  speaks  of  "plurimi." 


PRACTICAL  CONCLUSIONS.  309 

have  been  daily  offered.  And  St.  Chrysostom  repeatedly 
affirms  that  it  was.  "  Do  we  not  offer  every  day  ?  Certainly  we 
do."  ^  So  that  he  calls  the  Holy  Eucharist  "  the  daily  Sacrifice  ;"  '^ 
and  speaks  of  Christians  as  having  a  "  daily  memorial  in  these 
mysteries."  ^  The  only  Father  of  note  who  speaks  of  his  own 
practice  as  not  coming  up  to  the  common  rule  is  St.  Basil,  who 
communicated  four  times  a  week,  as  well  as  on  all  Saints'  days. 
But  it  does  not  follow  that  even  in  Pontus  the  Holy  Eucharist 
was  not  celebrated  daily,  for  Saints'  days  occurred  every  week, 
and  he  says  "  to  communicate  every  day,  and  be  partaker  of  the 
sacred  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  is  good  and  profitable."  *  So 
that  he  exhibits  but  a  slight  deviation  from  that  rule,  which  the 
leading  teachers  of  the  ancient  Church  recommended  to  others, 
as  well  as  practised  themselves.  And  we  find  the  same  usage  in 
the  next  century.  St.  Maximus  says  that  "the  death  of  Our 
Lord  is  celebrated  every  day,  in  obedience  to  His  own  com- 
mand :"  ^  and  St.  Augustin  speaks  of  Christ  as  "  slain  daily  for 
the  peoj)le  in  the  sacrament."  ^  He  abstained,  indeed,  from 
censuring  the  custom  of  those  places  where  reception  was  less 
frequent,  and  where  the  offering  was  only  made  once^  or  twice 
a  week,  but  his  own  judgment  is  that  men  "  ought  to  receive 
daily ;"  ^  for  himself,  he  says,  that  "  the  Eucharist  is  our  daily 
bread  :"^  and  his  daily ^'^  homilies  aj)pear  to  have  been  preached 
on  the  occasions  of  its  celebration. 

The  history  of  the  first  four  centuries,  then,  shows  that  the 
Church  adhered  as  closely  as  possible  to  the  Apostolic  usage 
of  the  "  daily  "  "  breaking  of  bread."  There  were  times  when 
persecution  made  daily  assemblies  impossible,  there  were  places 
which  were   wanting  in  the   zeal  which  maintained  them,  but 

^  Horn,  in  Ep.  ad  Hebr.  xvii.  3  ;  and  vide  Horn.  adv.  Jud.  iii.  4. 

2  Horn.  iii.  4,  ad  Ephes.  3  Horn.  1.  3,  In  Matth. 

^  Epis.  xciii.  There  were  "often  one  or  two"  Saints'  Days  "in  the 
same  week." — Bingham,  xiii.  9.  5. 

^  De  Nat.  Sanct.  Serm.  78.  ^  Epis.  xcviii.  9. 

'   Epis.  liv.  2.  s  Sermo  227. 

^  Sermo  Ivii.  7 ;  Iviii.  5 ;  lix.  6 ;  and  De  Sermone  Dom.  in  Monte, 
ii.  25. 

^°  Vide  Sermo  cxxviii.  6  ;  cliv.  1 ;  civ.  1. 


^. 


810  PEACTICAL  CONCLUSIONS. 

the  most  distinguished  Fathers  speak  of  the  Holy  Eucharist 
as  daily  offeied,  and  recommended  daily  reception  to  the  faithful. 
"  The  oblation  which  is  made  to-day,  which  was  made  yesterday, 
which  is  made  every  day,  is  like  the  one  which  was  made  on 
that  sabbath  "  {i.  e.  of  its  institution)  ;  "  that  was  not  more  sacred 
than  this  is,  nor  is  this  less  weighty  than  that  was ;  but  it  is 
ever  one  and  the  same,  alike  awful  and  saving."  ^  To  trace  the 
custom  lower  is  hardly  necessary,  for  after  this  time  its  predomi- 
nance will  scarcely  be  disputed.  It  will  be  enough  to  quote 
the  words  of  the  great  Prelate,  to  whom  England  is  so  largely 
indebted :  "  We  ought  to  sacrifice  the  daily  offerings  of  His 
Flesh  and  Blood." '^  And  he  recommends  the  example  of 
Cassius,  Bishop  of  Narni,  "  whose  custom  was  to  offer  daily 
sacrifices  to  God,  so  that  scarce  a  day  of  his  life  passed  away, 
in  which  he  did  not  offer  to  Almiglity  God  the  appeasing 
victim,"  *  And  this  leads  to  the  thought,  how  it  comes  that 
the  custom  of  our  own  Church  should  so  little  correspond  to 
the  advice  of  its  early  benefactor.  There  have  not  been 
wanting  men  in  our  history,  who,  as  Sulpicius  Severus  says 
of  St.  ]\Iartin,  "  might  be  compared  with  the  very  Apostles." 
Certainly  there  have  been  those  who,  for  singleness  of  heart 
and  largeness  of  comprehension,  might  have  sat  at  the  feet  of 
St.  Ambrose  and  St.  Augustin.  How  comes  it,  then,  that 
among  the  many  generations  which  have  flourished  during  the 
three  last  centuries,  there  have  been  none  to  revive  a  rule, 
which  has  the  sanction,  not  only  of  Holy  Sci'ipture,  but  of 
Catholic  Antiquity  ?  There  have  been  men  of  thought  among 
us,  and  men  of  activity ;  men  endowed  with  ample  means,  and 
raised  to  those  high  positions  which  qualify  them  to  take  the 
lead,  and  give  a  tone  to  the  opinion  of  their  fellows.  How 
comes  it,  then,  that  with  a  professed  intention  of  respecting 
antiquity,  there  should  be  so  fundamental  a  difference  between 
ancient  and  modern  times,  and  that  to  return  to  the  scriptural 

'  S.  Clirys.  Horn.  iii.  con.  Jiid.  4,  vol.  i.  p.  611. 
^  S.  Gregorii  Magni  Dialog,  iv.  58. 
^  In  Evan.  lib.  ii.  Horn.  xx.\vii.  9. 


PKACTICAL  CONCLUSIONS.  311 

and  primitive  model  should  never  have  been  thought  of,  not- 
withstanding all  the  learning,  leisure,  and  zeal,  which  has 
existed  in  the  Church  of  England  ? 

This  is  the  more  singular,  because  the  abandonment  of  the 
daily  Eucharist  was  evidently  not  contemplated,  when  "  The 
Book  of  Common  Prayer"  was  first  promulgated.  King 
Edward's  First  Book,  A. d.  1548,  provided  for  "Daily  Com- 
munion" in  the  Cathedral  Churches,  and  contemplated  its 
observance  in  other  places.  Directions  are  given  for  times 
"  when  the  Holy  Communion  is  celebrated  on  the  worke 
day  or  in  private  houses ; "  and  the  notice  is  not  required 
to  be  read  above  once  a  month,  "  where  there  is  daily  com- 
munion." With  a  view,  too,  to  insure  its  weekly  ministration 
at  least,  even  in  Parish  Churches,  it  was  ordered  that  "  the 
parishioners  of  every  parish  shall  offer  every  Sunday,"  and  that 
of  the  families  which  are  required  to  defray  the  charge  of  the 
elements,  "  some  one  at  the  least  of  that  house  ....  shall 
receive  the  Communion  with  the  priest."  This  order,  with  a 
corresponding  one  respecting  Cathedral  and  Collegiate  Churches, 
professes  to  have  had  in  view  that  which  had  been  enjoined 
by  various  mediaeval  canons,^  that  the  Holy  Eucharist  should 
not  be  celebrated  unless  there  be  some  person  to  respond  to 
the  priest.  "  The  minister  having  always  some  to  communicate 
with  him,  may  accordingly  solemnize  so  high  and  holy  mysteries 
with  all  the  suffrages  and  due  order  appointed  for  the  same." 
The  order,  however,  was  only  that  some  should  communicate 
with  the  minister,  not  that  all  present  should  be  obliged  to  do 
so ;  it  was  provided  only  that  persons  who  did  not  receive 
should  "  depart  out  of  the  quire,"  in  which  those  who  designed 
to  communicate  were  to  assemble. 

^  These  canons,  however,  make  no  mention  of  communicating  with  the 
priest.  They  order  only  that  there  shall  be  some  one  to  be  addressed, 
and  to  respond.  Vide  Council  of  Mayence,  A.D.  813,  Can.  43,  Earduin, 
iv.  1015.  The  point  is  fully  explained  in  the  48th  Can.  of  the  Sixth 
Council  of  Paris,  A.D.  829,  quoted  in  the  Capitularies  (Baluzius),  vol.  i. 
p.  1137.  Vide  Harduin,  vol.  iv.  p.  1325.  And  vide  the  Synodical  Letter 
of  Katherius,  Bishop  of  Verona.     D'Achery's  Spicilegium,  vol.  i.  p.  377. 


812  PRACTICAL  CONCLUSIONS. 

But  about  a  year  after  the  publication  of  King  Edward's 
First  Book,  Archbishop  Cranmer  abandoned  his  belief  in  the 
Real  Presence — a  change  which  seems  to  have  been  very 
acceptable  to  the  young  king  and  his  favourites.  By  virtue 
of  the  more  than  Papal  power  which  he  assumed,  Edward  soon 
superseded  the  Book  which  he  had  formerly  sanctioned,  and 
imposed  his  Second  Book  of  1552  upon  the  nation.  By  this 
means,  as  well  as  by  the  forty-two  Articles  which  were  pub- 
lished the  same  year,  and  in  like  manner  \\'ithout  any  spiritual 
sanction,  the  Zuinglo-Calvinistic  system  took  possession  of  our 
Churches.  All  mention  of  daily  ^  communion  immediately 
disappeared ;  and  instead  of  a  reference  to  "  the  suffrages  and 
due  order,"  as  the  ground  on  which  some  were  to  communicate 
with  the  priest,  it  is  ordered  that  "  there  shall  be  no  celebration 
of  the  Lord's  Supper,  except  there  be  a  good  number  to  com- 
municate with  the  priest,  according  to  his  discretion."  Nor 
was  this  all.  For  whereas,  according  to  the  previous  book,  all 
who  were  in  fellowship  with  the  Christian  body  might  remain 
in  the  nave,  and  communicate  in  the  Church's  offering,  even 
if  any  temporary  hindrance  prevented  them  from  drawing 
nearer  to  the  altar,  the  Second  Book  of  King  Edward  ordered 
such  persons  to  go  away,  and  thus  excluded  them  from  the 
Eucharistic  Sacrifice,  unless  they  were  prepared  at  the  moment 
to  participate  in  the  sacrament.  "  Bather  than  ye  should  so  do, 
depart  you  hence,  and  give  place  to  them  that  be  godly  disposed." 
This  order,  to  "  send  the  multitudes  away,"  was  the  cause  both 
of  the  subsequent  small  attendance  at  the  Holy  Eucharist,  and 
of  the  infrequency  of  the  rite.  For  it  was  soon  found,  that  if 
every  one  who  was  present  was  obliged  to  receive  on  every 
occasion,  it  was  necessary  either  to  give  up  the  daily  Eucharist, 
or  to  dispense  with  the  attendance  of  "  the  great  congi-egation." 
Yet  the  order  was  natural  enough,  considering  that  the  ruling 

'  That  Luther  did  not  appreciate  the  Real  Presence,  though  heretiiimd 
it  theoretically,  may  be  gathered  from  his  order:  "Missre  autem  quoti- 
dianiu  in  universum  aboleantur." — De  rUn  Cccremoniis.  Luther's  Works, 
vol.  ii.  fol.  899. 


PEACTICAL  CONCLUSIONS.  313 

party  had  adopted  the  Zuinglian  theory,  and  supposed  the  Holy 
Eucharist  to  be  merely  a  commemorative  feast.  For  if  Christ's 
real  Presence  be  denied,  the  jjrimitive  doctrine  of  the  Eucharistic 
Sacrifice  must  be  abandoned  also ;  so  that  to  have  maintained  a 
spiritual  participation  in  the  Offering,  would  have  been  to  keep 
up  a  practice  which  had  lost  its  meaning.  It  was  only  consis- 
tent, therefore,  to  accommodate  the  usages  of  the  Church  to  its 
new  doctrines.  The  service,  consequently,  was  divested  of  its 
sacrificial  character ;  and  no  longer  bore  witness,  as  in  early 
times,  to  the  great  event  which  is  transacted  at  the  altar.  This 
was  done  both  by  mutilating  the  prayer  of  oblation,  which  had 
been  retained  in  the  Book  of  1548,  and  by  placing  it  after, 
instead  of  before,  the  communion.  These  changes  in  the  ritual 
tallied  but  too  truly  with  the  order  by  which  all  who  were  un- 
prepared to  receive  daily,  were  excluded  from  the  Church.  But 
that  the  transition  might  not  be  too  glaring,  a  new  ritual  was 
provided,  which  bore  some  relation  to  the  past — a  ritual  which 
has  been  described  by  a  recent  writer  as  "  the  Missa  Sicca, 
neither  consecration  nor  communion,  but  a  mere  sham  rite,  which, 
most  unfortunately,  is  retained  in  our  own  Church,  whenever 
actual  celebration  does  not  take  place."  ^  This  would  appear 
less  offensive  to  the  Zuinglian  party,  because  their  very  system 
is  to  deprive  the  Holy  Eucharist  of  its  reality,  and  to  resolve  it 
into  a  mere  representation.  But  the  Missa  Sicca  was  allowed 
to  be  an  abuse  even  in  mediaeval  times,  and  it  is  wholly  without 
ancient  authority.  For  what  is  the  altar,  without  the  gift  by 
which  it  is  consecrated  ?  Why  does  the  priest  stand  there,  ex- 
cept to  minister  Christ  ?  What  ancient  Church,  or  what  early 
Father,  ever  thought  of  solemnizing  the  Eucharistic  rites, 
unless  He  was  present  who  was  the  soul  of  the  service  ?  What 
so  signally  distinguishes  the  Jewish  from  the  Christian  ritual,  as 
that  in  the  first  "  the  altar  sanctifies  the  gift,"  whereas  the  true 
gift  is  that  which  sanctifies  the  altar  ? 

This  sentence  of  exclusion,  which   the   Puritan   party   had 
introduced  in  1552,  was  withdrawn  when  the  Prayer-Book  was 
^  "Neale's  History  of  the  Eastern  Church,"  Gen.  Introd.  p.  715. 


314 


PKACTICAL  CONCLUSIONS. 


first  revised  by  the  Church's  representatives,  A.D.  1662 ;  and 
thus  it  became  possible  for  all  who  were  in  the  Church's  com- 
munion, to  take  part  again  on  all  occasions  in  the  Eucharistic 
Sacrifice.  But  the  habit  of  attending,  once  lost,  was  not  easily 
recovered.  The  dislocation,  too,  of  the  Eucharistic  office,  was 
allowed  to  continue ;  so  that  the  nature  and  real  efficacy  of  the 
Eucharistic  Sacrifice  was  not  brought  out,  as  it  might  have  been, 
by  the  words  of  the  service.  And  the  very  beauty  and  devout- 
ness  of  the  words,  which  had  been  left,  rendered  men  less  alive 
to  the  importance  of  the  acts,  which  had  been  omitted.  Not 
that  there  were  wanting  those  who  saw  and  regretted  the 
abandonment  of  the  ancient  usage.  Such  was  Bishop  Overall, 
to  whom  we  owe  the  conclusion  of  the  Catechism — the  most 
important  testimony  which  we  possess  to  the  reality  of  both 
sacraments.  His  chaplain,  Bishop  Cosin,  quotes  the  order  of 
the  Council  of  Mayence,  that  the  Holy  Eucharist  should  not  be 
ministered  unless  persons  were  present  who  could  respond  and 
be  addressed  :  "  Nullus  Presbyter  solus  Missam  cantare  valet 
recte,  ut  nobis  videtur.  Quomodo  enim  dicet,  Dominus 
vobiscum  ?  "  &c.  On  which  Cosin  remarks,  "  They  say  yet,  vi 
nobis  videtur :  fain  would  they  have  had  the  abuse  amended, 
and  yet  the  Communion  not  neglected  for  all  that.  They  knew 
not  well  whether  they  should  forbid  it  absolutely  and  simply,  if 
there  were  no  company ;  as  indeed  better  were  it  to  endure  the 
absence  of  the  people,  than  for  the  minister  to  neglect  the  usual 
and  daily  sacrifice  of  the  Church,  by  which  all  people,  whether 
they  be  there  or  no,  reap  so  much  benefit.  And  this  was  the 
opinion  of  my  lord  and  master.  Dr.  Overall."  \ 

An  unwilhngness  to  be  entirely  separated  from  the  various 
Protestant  communities,  among  whom  the  disuse  of  consecration 
had  involved  the  denial  of  the  Peal  Presence,  and  therefore  of 
the  Eucharistic  Sacrifice,  may  in  those  days  have  obstructed  a 
return  to  the  primitive  usage.     But  what  prevents  the  attempt 

'  Additional  notes  to  NicholU,  p.  53.  Cosin  refers  to  the  Council  of 
Nice.  But  tlie  words  which  he  cites  occur  as  the  43rd  canon  of  the 
Council  of  Mayence. — llard.  iv.  p.  1015. 


PRACTICAL  CONCLUSIONS.  315 

at  present,  among  those  who  believe  that  the  claims  of  the 
Church  of  England  depend  upon  the  maintenance  of  her  Catholic 
character  ?  Why  should  she  not  return  to  that  custom  of  daily 
Communion,  which  was  authoi'ized  both  by  the  Apostles  and 
the  Primitive  Church,  and  which  has  on  its  side  the  judgment 
of  all  other  bodies  which  call  themselves  Catholic  in  Chris- 
tendom ?  Now  here  occurs  the  practical  difficulty,  that,  ac- 
cording to  our  present  usage,  all  persons  who  are  unprepared 
for  so  frequent  a  reception  of  the  sacrament  of  Christ's  Body 
and  Blood,  would  be  excluded  from  the  daily  service  of  the 
Church.  But  why  should  this  usage  be  perpetuated,  now  that 
it  has  lost  both  its  doctrinal  significance,  and  its  legislative 
force?  We  are  neither  bound  to  the  Zuinglian  theory,  by 
which  the  validity  of  the  Eucharistic  Sacrifice  was  denied,  nor 
to  that  law  of  exclusion  which  was  its  practical  result.  The 
tacit  omission  of  this  order  from  our  Book  of  Common  Prayer, 
is  equivalent  to  its  direct  repeal.  So  that  any  priest,  who  could 
induce  his  people  to  give  its  due  prominence  to  the  Eucharistic 
ofiice,  might  at  once  resume  the  ancient  usage  :  ^  or  if  it  were 
thought  presumptuous  in  a  priest  to  take  such  a  step  on  his 
own  authority,  it  might  plainly  be  done  by  any  Bishop.  For 
each  diocese  is  an  integral  portion  of  the  Universal  Church ; 

^  Four  places  in  different  Dioceses  may  already  be  mentioned,  where 
the  Christian  Sacrifice  is  daily  ofFered,  according  to  Apostolic  custom,  by 
priests  of  the  Church  of  England.  But  it  would  be  dangerous  to  invite 
persons  to  communicate  daily,  or  to  be  present  daily  at  the  offering  of 
the  Sacrifice,  unless  they  have  such  assured  faith  in  the  Real  Presence, 
as  to  come  "discerning  the  Lord's  Body."  And  the  clergy  should  re- 
member that  in  producing  this  belief  their  acts  will  be  as  effective  as 
their  ivonh.  For  the  laity  will  estimate  things  which  are  sacred,  not 
only  by  that  which  they  are  called,  but  by  the  manner  in  which  they 
are  treated.  The  Apostolical  Constitutions  took  the  best  means  of  in- 
ducing the  people  to  "come  with  reverence  as  to  the  body  of  the  King," 
when  they  bade  the  Deacons  "to  minister  to  the  Lord's  Body  with  fear." 
[lib.  ii.  57.]  It  has  been  shown  (p.  217)  that  this  feeling  extended  even 
to  the  fragments  which  remained.  May  not  the  remarkable  direction 
(St.  John  vi.  12)  have  been  designed  as  a  lesson  in  regard  to  this  par- 
ticular ;  or  can  we  have  a  better  example  as  to  our  general  conduct 
towards  this  Sacrament  than  was  given  by  her,  whom  Our  Lord  com- 
mended to  the  honour  of  all  generations  ?     {St.  Mark  xiv.  8,  9.) 


316  PRACTICAL  CONCLUSIONS. 

and  every  Bishop,  therefore,  would  possess  full  authority  to  re- 
form an  abuse,  whicli  does  not  depend  upon  law,  but  upon 
custom. 

It  may  be  said,  indeed,  that  the  clergy  are  always  as  willing 
to  minister  the  Holy  Eucharist  as  their  jmrishioners  to  receive 
it ;  and  therefore  that  the  abuse,  if  such  it  be,  is  the  fault  of 
individuals.  And  the  weakness  of  individuals  cannot  be  imputed 
as  a  defect  to  the  collective  Church,  because  it  is  inseparable 
from  our  common  nature.  But  the  obligations  of  the  Church 
of  Christ  are  one  thing ;  the  defects  of  its  individual  members 
are  another.  That  the  people  should  be  unprepared  for  that 
daily  reception  of  Christ's  Body  which  would  render  earth  most 
like  to  heaven ;  that  the  food  of  angels  should  be  too  sacred  for 
their  daily  meat — this  is  the  fault  of  those,  whose  own  infirmi- 
ties exclude  them  from  the  full  richness  of  the  Gospel  feast. 
The  Church  does  her  part,  when  she  daily  spreads  her  board, 
and  invites  men  to  partake  of  it.  The  manna  is  daily  poured 
forth  around  the  camp ;  it  is  the  fault  of  individuals  if  it  be  not 
gathered.  But  their  negligence  is  no  reason  why  she  should 
intermit  that  continual  worship,  which  it  is  her  ofl&ce,  as  a 
collective  body,  to  render  to  God.  It  is  her  commission,  "  that 
supplications,  prayers,  intercessions,  and  giving  of  thanks,  be 
made  for  all  men."  To  omit  this  would  be  to  neglect  her  proper 
task  ;  just  as  the  frailty  of  individuals  is  only  her  grief ;  but 
any  voluntary  neglect  of  public  discipline  must  be  her  sin. 
Perhaps  it  may  be  tliought  that  this  last  evil  accounts  for  the 
other  ;  that  till  Church  discipline  can  be  restored,  it  is  impos- 
sible to  give  its  due  prominence  to  the  Eucharistic  office.  How 
can  j'^ou  invite  men,  it  may  be  said,  to  daily  communion,  till  the 
purity  of  the  Christian  body  is  maintained  by  a  stricter  disci- 
pline V  But  on  this  princijile  you  must  forbid  a  monthly  as  well 
as  a  daily  Eucharist ;  you  must  omit  prayer,  as  well  as  sacra- 
ment. For  the  rules  of  ancient  piety  would  have  excluded 
notorious  offenders,  not  only  from  the  Church's  Eucharistic 
otHce,  but  even  from  its  more  solemn  prayers.  AVliatever  fault 
and  loss,  therefore,  may  arise  from  lack  of  discipline,  it  can  be 


PEACTICAL  CONCLUSIONS.  817 

no  reason  why  the  Church  should  abandon  that  perpetual  wor- 
ship, which  it  is  her  duty  and  privilege  to  present. 

Now  it  was  the  principle  of  the  ancient  Church,  that  this 
perjDetual  worship  did  not  attain  jDerfection  except  in  the 
Eucharistic  office ;  and  nothing  less,  therefore,  was  supposed  to 
be  the  "  daily  sacrifice  "  spoken  of  in  Holy  Writ.  The  cessation 
of  "the  sacrifice  and  the  oblation,"  predicted  by  Daniel  (ix.  27), 
is  explained  by  Primasius  to  be  "  the  failure  of  the  victim  and 
sacrifice,  which  is  now  offered  with  solemn  order  in  the  Church."  ^ 
St.  Jerome  assigns  the  same  meaning  to  Daniel's  words :  on 
Daniel,  viii.  14,  he  says,  "most  of  our  interpreters  apply  this 
passage,"  i.e.  the  vision  concerning  the  daily  sacrifice,  "  to  Anti- 
christ, and  suppose  that  the  event  which  happened  under 
Antiochus  in  type,  will  happen  under  him  in  reality."  '^  And 
again,  he  tells  us  that  he  translates  the  term  which  is  employed 
in  Daniel  xi.  31,  and  xii.  11,  by  "juge  sacrijicutm"  and  that 
he  considers  its  intermission  to  mean,  that  "  Antichrist,  getting 
possession  of  the  world,  will  forbid  the  worship  of  God."  ^  Now, 
by  the  "juge  sacrijtcium"  he  obviously  intends  "  the  victims, 
which,"  he  says,  "  are  daily  offered  by  the  Bishop  to  God."  * 
St.  Chrysostom,  too,  describes  the  Holy  Eucharist  as  "  the  daily 
sacrifice  ;"^  and  earlier  still,  St.  Ireneeus  says,  that  "the  time  of 
Antichrist's  tyranny,"  when  "  the  sacrifice  and  libation  shall  be 
taken  away,"  is  that  "  wherein  the  saints  shall  be  put  to  flight, 
who  offer  the  pure  sacrifice  to  the  Lord."  ^  These  Fathers 
believed  that  a  time  of  persecution  would  arise,  when  the  public 
offices  of  the  Christian  Church  would  be  everywhere  interdicted. 
For  St.  Irenseus  explains  the  pure  sacrifice  to  be  that  "  new 
oblation  of  the  New  Testament,  which  the  Church  receiving 
from  the  Apostles,  offers  throughout  the  whole  world  to  God."  ^ 

Such  passages  imply  the  Holy  Eucharist  to  be  that  perpetual 

1  Comment,  in  Apocalyp.  lib.  iii.  Bib.  Pat.  x.  315. 

2  St.  Jerom.  vol.  iii.  p.  1106. 

^  lb.  on  Dan.  xii.  11,  vol.  iii.  p.  1133,  bis. 

*  lb.  in  Tit.  i.  vol.  iv.  part  i.  p.  418. 

^  Hom.  in  Ephes.  iii.  4. 

6  S.  Iren.  v.  25.  4.  '  lb.  iv.  17.  5. 


318  PRACTICAL  CONCLUSIONS. 

worship,  which  it  is  the  Church's  puhlic  office  to  present.  So 
that  no  negligence  in  the  attendance  of  the  people  can  be  a 
legitimate  ground  for  its  disuse.  For  it  is  the  Cli arch's  function 
to  offer  itself  continually  to  God ;  and  this  offering  cannot  be 
acceptably  presented,  except  through  the  merit  of  that  perfect 
victim,  with  whom  in  this  service  it  is  identified.  This  was  the 
reason  why  the  Church's  puhlic  assembly  {synams)  was  equiva- 
lent, in  the  language  of  ancient  times,  to  the  Holy  Eucharist. 
"  The  mysteries,"  says  St.  Chrysostom,  "  which  are  celebrated  at 
every  assemby  [si/naxis),  are  called  the  Eucharist."  ^  AVhether 
they  met  on  Sunday  or  week-day,  as  we  have  seen,  the  custom 
of  the  first  Christians  was  to  stand  at  God's  altar. ^  The  ground 
of  supplication  always  was,  "  how  shall  we  not  jirevail  with  God, 
when  that  awful  Sacrifice  lies  displayed  ?  "  ^  For  except  through 
her  union  with  that  sacrifice,  the  Church  felt  herself  altogether 
unworthy  to  appear  before  God.  So  that  those  who  jDroscribed 
this  daily  service,  and  confined  its  celebration  to  the  occasions, 
when  there  were  "  a  good  number  to  communicate  with  the 
priest,"  viewed  the  Holy  Eucharist  under  an  aspect  entirely 
different  from  that  which  prevailed  in  early  ages.  They  must 
have  forgotten  that  the  Eucharistic  Sacrifice  was  a  substantive 
act,  whereby  the  Intercession  of  the  Great  High  Priest  was  per- 
petually applied  for  the  benefit  of  His  brethren.  They  failed, 
therefore,  to  do  full  justice  to  the  work  of  that  Ascended  Head, 
who  not  only  was,  but  "  is  the  Saviour  of  the  body."  For  they 
excluded  His  own  availing  participation  from  His  people's  wor- 
ship, and  perceived  not  that  it  was  the  merit  which  He  had 
acquired  by  the  sacrifice  of  the  Cross,  which  gives  value  to  the 
sacrifice  of  the  Altar. 

The  subject  before  us  is  so  important,  that  it  seems  necessary 
to  meet  the  objections  which  the  previous  statements  are  likely 
to  encounter.  First — It  is  sometimes  said,  that  to  allow  men  to 
take  part  in  the  sacrifice  of  the  Holy  Eucharist,  on  occasions 

'  In  St.  Matt.  Horn.  xxv.  3,  vol.  vii.  p.  310. 

^  TertuUian  de  Oratione,  14. 

^  S.  Chrysos.  on  Plulipp.  Horn.  iii.  4. 


PEACTICAL  CONCLUSIONS.  319 

when  they  are  prevented  from  taking  part  in  the  sacrament,  is 
contrary  to  the  analogy  suppHed  by  the  sacrificial  observances 
of  the  Levitical  Ritual,  in  which  the  custom  was  that  those  who 
"  partook  of  the  altar,"  should  "  eat  of  the  sacrifice."  Secondly — 
Such  a  permission  is  said  not  only  to  be  destitute  of  primitive 
sanction,  but  to  be  directly  condemned  by  the  early  Fathers. 
Thirdly — It  is  asked,  what  advantage  could  accrue  from  it,  even 
if  it  were  permitted. 

First — It  is  admitted  on  all  hands,  that  in  the  Holy  Eucha- 
rist there  is  a  feast  upon  a  sacrifice.  This  was  implied  in  its 
original  appointment,  and  St.  Paul  refers  to  it  as  a  reason  for 
abstaining  from  the  sacrificial  banquets  of  the  heathen.  But  it 
has  been  shown  that  the  Holy  Eucharist  consists  not  only  of  a 
feast  upon  a  sacrifice,  but  likewise  of  a  sacrifice  itself.  Its  full 
and  perfect  participation,  therefore,  implies  no  doubt  that  men 
should  avail  themselves  of  both  its  purposes.  But  it  is  a  further 
question,  whether  its  purposes  are  so  united,  that  it  is  impossible 
to  employ  it  in  the  one  relation,  unless  it  be  employed  simul- 
taneously in  the  other.  Is  it  contrary  either  to  natural  piety 
or  to  an  express  command,  to  join  in  the  sacrifice  without  going 
on  to  the  sacrament ;  or  to  partake  the  sacrament  without  hav- 
ing been  present  at  its  oblation  ?  It  is  clear  that  the  last  was 
not  objected  to  by  the  early  Christians,  for  it  was  their  esta- 
blished usage,  to  send  that  which  had  been  consecrated  to  those 
who  were  debarred  from  attendance  at  the  sacrifice.^  Neither 
does  there  seem  any  reason  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  why  those 
who  are  hindered  from  obtaining  the  full  benefits  which  the 
Church  has  to  offer,  should  be  prohibited  from  their  partial 
enjoyment.  "We  must  see,  then,  whether  such  partial  employ- 
ment of  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  forbidden  by  the  laws  of  the 
Church,  or  contradicts  those  piinciples  which  were  foreshadowed 
by  the  synagogue;  whether  it  is  at  variance  either  with  the 
nature  of  Jewish  types  or  Christian  sacraments. 

Now  it  would  not,  after  all,  be  of  any  great  moment,  if  the 
rules  of  the  Mosaic  ritual  had  in  this  case  been  opposed  to  the 
^  Justin  Martyr,  Apol.  i.  67. 


320  PRACTICAL  CONCLUSIONS. 

cufetom  of  the  Church,  because  the  sacrifices  of  the  Law  were 
eaten  as  bodily  food,  and  not  for  spiritual  nourishment.  Yet 
some  general  analogy  may  be  anticipated  between  the  two  dis- 
pensations. And  so  far  as  the  Law  supplies  any  guidance  on 
the  subject,  it  not  only  does  not  militate  against  the  principles 
which  have  been  laid  down,  but  altogether  confirms  them.  The 
analogy  of  the  Jewish  service  would  certainly  require,  as  was 
enjoined  by  the  Twelfth  Council  of  Toledo,  that  the  Holy  Eu- 
charist should  never  be  solemnized,  without  being  partaken  by 
the  consecrating  priest.  "  Hi  qui  sacrijicantes  non  edunt,  rei. 
sunt  dominici  sacramenti"  ^  For  it  has  been  shown  that  in 
cases  in  which  the  Jewish  priest  acted  as  a  proper  mediator,  he 
was  required  to  eat  of  the  offering  (p.  257);  and  that  one  cha- 
racteristic of  the  Christian  sacrifice  is,  that  it  supersedes  those 
provisions,  by  which  the  eating  of  the  victim  was  prevented  in 
cases  in  which  the  Jewish  priests  were  insufficient  mediators. 
But  when  we  turn  from  the  priest  to  the  people,  we  find  nothiug 
which  would  indicate  the  same  necessity.  To  all  other  parties, 
except  the  sacrificing  priest,  the  eating  of  the  victim  appears 
to  have  been  optional.  The  priestly  family  discharged  a  me- 
diatorial office  towaixls  the  nation  at  large,  and  therefore  all 
its  males  miyht  eat  of  the  inferior  class  of  sin-offerings."  But 
there  was  no  provision  which  compelled  all  of  them  to  partake. 
And  as  respects  the  peace-offerings,  in  which  those  who  pre- 
sented them  might  share,  the  eating  them  appears  to  have 
been  allowed,  but  not  commanded.  The  characteristic  act  was 
the  presenting  the  victim  before  God :  "  He  shall  lay  his  hand 
upon  the  head  of  his  offering,  and  kill  it  at  the  door  of  the 
tabernacle  of  the  congregation."  ^  Supposing  the  offerer  to  have 
become  ceremonially  unclean  before  the  sacrificial  feast  could  be 
celebrated,  he  was  disqualified  from  eating  of  it :  ■*  but  there  is 
no  indication  that  his  prievous  act  of  oblation  was  invalidated. 

*  "  Quotiescunque  sacrificans  corpus  et  sanguinem  Jesu  Cliristi  Domini 
nostri  in  altario  immolat,  toties  perceptionis  corporis  et  sanguinis  Christi 
se  participem  pr.tbeat." — Con.  Tolet.  xii.  Can.  5,  Hanlaht,  iii.  p.  17'2'2. 

-  Leviticus  \±  29.  ^  Id.  iii.  2,  8,  13.  *  Id.  vii.  20. 


PEACTICAL  CONCLUSIONS.  321 

"  For  the  overplus,"  says  Josephus,  "  they  that  oflPer  the  sacrifice 
may  eat  of  it  during  two  days."  ^  And  all  which  the  law  en- 
joined was,  that  the  residue  which  remained  uneaten  on  the 
third  day  should  be  burned  with  fire.^ 

There  is  nothing,  then,  in  the  analogies  derivable  from  the 
ordinary  sacrifices  of  the  Jewish  law,  whether  we  look  at  burnt- 
ofi'erings,  sin-offerings,  or  peace-ofi'erings,  which  would  afford 
any  presumption  that  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  the  sacrifice  and 
the  sacrament  cannot  lawfully  be  dissociated.  No  doubt  the 
union  of  both  is  essential  to  the  full  efficacy  of  this  ordinance ; 
and  yet  each  of  them  may  in  itself  be  a  substantive  action.  But 
there  remains  the  case  of  the  Passover,  which,  though  not  in- 
cluded in  any  of  the  previous  classes,  is  yet  called  a  sacrifice  in 
Scripture,^  and  was  so  considered  by  the  Jews.  Now,  in  this, 
the  eating  of  the  victim  was  plainly  the  characteristic  act,  from 
which  it  might  be  supposed  that  the  benefit  of  the  ordinance 
could  not  be  dissociated.  Moreover,  the  Passover  is  the  rite 
which  bears  especial  relation  to  the  mysteries  of  the  Gospel ; 
for  "  Christ  our  Passover  is  sacrificed  for  us." 

It  must  be  observed,  however,  as  respects  the  Passover,  that 

it  is  only  by  a  general  analogy  that  it  appears  to  have  been 

called  a  sacrifice,  and  that  it  does  not  strictly  answer  to  the 

conditions  by  which  sacrifices  were  distinguished.     That  which 

was  directly  commanded  was  that  it  should  be  eaten :  there  is 

no  direction  respecting  the  offering  it  before  God  in  the  manner 

commonly  prescribed  respecting  sacrifices.     So  that  though  all 

males  were  ordered  to  eat  it,  yet  this  was  a  specific  appointment, 

and  not  intended  to  give  validity  to  the  previous  oblation.    And 

even  as  regards  the  Passover,  considering  it  as  a  sacrifice,  its 

benefit  was  not  confined  to  those  by  whom  it  was  partaken. 

For,  taken  under  this  aspect,  it  must  be  thought,  like  that  first 

Passover  which  was  celebrated  in  Egypt,  to  have  been  a  sort  of 

national  sacrifice  of  thanksgiving.     Now  there  is  no  injunction 

in  Scripture  that  women  should  eat  it,  and  their  doing  so  was 

^  Jewish  Ant.  iii.  9.  ^  Leviticus  vii.  17. 

^  Exodus  xii.  27  ;  xxxiv.  25. 

T 


322  PRACTICAL  CONCLUSIONS. 

lield  to  be  optional '  by  the  Jews.  Moreover,  it  was  the  custom 
of  the  Jews  to  form  themselves  into  small  sodalities,  consisting 
of  ten  or  more  persons,  for  whose  common  use  a  lamb  was  slain. 
Now  it  was  allowable  for  persons  to  be  included  in  these  sodali- 
ties, who  from  extreme  age,  from  sickness,  or  from  youth,^  were 
unable  to  partake  of  the  lamb.  It  was  held  by  the  Jews  to  be 
illegal  ^  to  offer  the  lamb  for  a  sodality,  in  which  none  were  able 
to  partake  of  it ;  but  the  incapacity  of  some  *  members  was  no 
reason  why  it  should  not  be  offered  for  the  sodality  at  large. 
Some  of  the  Jewish  authorities  went  so  far  as  to  say  that  if  the 
lamb  fell  short,  so  that  none  remained  for  a  person  who  was 
legally  bound  to  eat  the  Passover,  he  was  exempted  from  the 
duty  of  repeating  the  rite,''  because  the  blood  of  the  first  victim 
had  been  sprinkled  in  his  name  ;  but  it  is  clear  on  all  hands  that 
the  benefits  of  the  ordinance,  regarding  it  as  a  sacrifice  for  the 
nation  at  large,  were  not  suj)posed  to  be  confined  to  those  by 
whom  it  was  eaten. 

Secondly — So  far,  then,  as  we  can  found  an  analogy  on  the 
rules  of  the  Synagogue,  we  should  expect  that  the  full  blessing 
of  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  to  be  gained  by  participation  both  in 
the  feast  and  in  the  sacrifice,  but  that  those  who  are  debarred  the 
one,  are  not  of  necessity  to  be  debarred  the  other.  Let  us  see 
next  what  is  to  be  gathered  from  the  practices  of  the  Church. 
We  may  first  take  our  position  towards  the  close  of  that  period, 
in  which  the  Church's  authority  was  as  yet  unimpaired  by  the 

^  Gemara  Hieros.  Kidduschin.  "Pascha  mulierum  ex  arbitrio." — Utjo- 
lini,  vol.  XXX.  p.  456  ;  and  I)e  Paschafe,  cap.  viii.     Ugolini,  xvii.  892. 

-  Mischnah.  Pesachim,  cap.  v.  sec.  3. 

^  "Si  fuerit  societas  centum,  qui  non  possint  comedere  in  quantitate 
olivse,  non  mactant  pro  illis ;  et  non  faciunt  societatem  mulierum,  servo- 
rum,  et  puerorum." — Gemara  Hieros.  de  Faschute,  cap.  viii.  Ugolini, 
xvii.  pp.  890,  902. 

''  "  Pro  comedentibus  suis,  et  pro  non  comedentibus  suis  ;  pro  annu- 
meratis,  et  pro  non  annumeratis ;  pro  circumcisis,  et  prwputiatis  ;  pro 
immundis  et  mundis,  est  legitimum." — Ih.  cap.  v.  p.  790  ;  vi.  824.  "Quo- 
modo  pro  non  comedentibus?  Si  mactaverit  nomine  aegroti,  senis,  qui 
non  possint  comedere  in  quantitate  oliva-." — 77>.  p.  806. 

*  "K.  Nathan  dicit ;  non  tenentur  facere  Pasclia  secundum,  quia  jam 
pro  iis  aspersua  fuit  sanguis." — Tosuphta,  vii.  2.     Ugolini,  xvii.  662. 


PRACTICAL  CONCLUSIONS.  323 

division  between  East  and  "West,  and  before  the  ancient  doctrine 
respecting  the  Holy  Eucharist  had  ever  been  disputed.  At 
that  time,  the  eighth  century  of  the  Christian  era,  we  have  full 
information  respecting  the  usual  mode  of  public  worship. 
Independently  of  the  Liturgical  documents  which  are  still  in 
existence,  the  decrees  of  Councils  show  us  the  three  follow- 
ing particulars.  First — That  the  Holy  Eucharist  was  at- 
tended, or  was  meant  to  be  attended,  by  the  mass  of  the 
laity,  weekly  at  least,  if  not  more  frequently :  Secondly — That 
they  were  expected  to  remain  till  the  end  of  the  service: 
Thirdly — That  frequent  reception  was  thought  desirable,  but 
that  they  were  not  required  to  communicate  except  on  special 
occasions. 

All  these  particulars  may  be  gathered  from  the  interesting 
Capitularies  issued  to  his  clergy  by  Theodulphus,  Bishop  of 
Orleans,  towards  the  end  of  this  century.  Every  Christian  was 
to  come  every  Sunday  with  his  oblations  to  the  Eucharistic 
service  (canon  24) ;  ^  he  must  hear  the  Eucharistic  office  and  the 
sermon  (46),  and  the  priest  was  not  allowed  to  celebrate  it  unless 
there  were  persons  standing  round,  whom  he  could  address,  and  by 
whom  he  could  be  answered  (7).  But  the  laity  were  ordered  to 
receive  on  the  Sundays  in  Lent,  and  on  certain  other  great  days, 
when  "penitus  ah  omnibus  communicandum"  (41) :  '^  and  they  are 
exhorted  to  prepare  themselves  for  the  occasion  by  special  self- 
denial  and  prayer  (44).  It  is  clear,  then,  that  to  take  part  in 
the  sacrifice  without  taking  part  in  the  sacrament,  was  a  regular 
custom  in  the  eight  century.  And  the  fact  is  confirmed  by  the 
canons  of  numerous  Councils  held  under  the  patronage  of 
Charlemagne,  at  the  end  of  the  century,  or  soon  afterwards.  On 
the  Ember  days,  it  is  said,  "  Veniant  onines  ad  Ecclesiam  liora 
nona  cum  Litaniis  ad  Missarum  solemnia."  ^  The  presence  of 
those  who  were  not  expected  to  communicate  is  directly  recog- 

^  Harduin,  iv.  p.  917. 

^  This  canon  appears  verbatim  in  the  directions  given  by  Ardalarius  to 
his  clergy  in  the  next  century. — D^Acherys  Spic.  vol.  iii.  p.  233. 
^  Coun.  of  Mayence,  can.  34,  Hard.  iv.  p.  1015. 

Y  2 


824  PRACTICAL  CONCLUSIONS. 

nised ; '  and  the  benefits  to  be  derived  from  the  oblation 
affirmed.  '^ 

As  we  ascend  from  this  point  towards  the  earliest  age,  we 
find  that  the  same  laws  reappear  in  the  Excerpta  of  Egbert, 
Archbishop  of  York,  a.d.  732,  and  in  the  Penitentiary  of 
Theodore,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  a.d.  668.  The  first  orders 
the  clergy  to  celebrate  the  Holy  Eucharist  daily  (No.  55'), 
while  the  laity  are  ordered  to  communicate  at  least  thrice  a  year 
(No.  38) :  the  second  is  express  in  directing  men  to  stay  till  the 
Eucharistic  office  is  ended.  *  The  same  usage  had  been  sanctioned 
by  the  Council  of  Agde,  and  two  Councils  of  Orange,  a  century 
previously.  The  Eucharistic  Service  is  ordered  to  be  attended 
by  the  laity  evei-y  Sunday ;  ^  they  are  forbidden  to  go  out  till  it 
is  over,  or  at  least  till  the  bishop  had  given  the  blessing,  which 
was  not  pronounced  till  after  consecration ; "  while  the  Council 
of  Agde  directs  (canon  18)  that  they  shall  communicate  three 
times  a  year.  The  intention  with  which  these  orders  were  given 
is  fully  explained  in  the  sermons  of  St.  Csesarius  of  Aries,  who 
presided  at  the  Council  of  Agde,  a.d.  506.  He  exhorts  his 
people  to  attend  eveiy  Sunday  and  make  their  oblations  for  the 
altar; "^  he  bids  them  stay  till  after  the  consecration,  and 
explains  the  benefits  of  taking  part  in  the  oblation  f  while  he 
contemplates  an  especial  preparation  before  they  communicate.^ 

A  hundred  years  before  the  Council  of  Agde  we  come  to  the 
age  of  the  great  Fathers  of  the  Church.     And  this  is  the  most 

^  "Presbyteri  omnino  admonendi  sunt  ut  cum  sacra  Missarum  solemnia 
peregerint,  atque  commuiiicaveriut,  pueris  aut  aliis  quibuslibet  per.souis 
adstantibus  Corjjus  Domini  indiscrete  nou  tribuant." — Tliinl  Council  of 
Tours,  Can.  19.     Hard.  iv.  p.  1025. 

^  "Oblationem  quoque  et  pacem  in  ecclesia  facere  jugiter  admoneatur 
populus  Cliristianus,  quia  ipsa  oblatio  sibi  et  suis  magnimi  remedium  est 
animarum." — Council  of  Noyoice,  C'anon  44,  Jhiril.  iv.  p.  1016. 

2  Thorpe's  Ancient  Laws  of  England,  vol.  ii.  p.  105.     Wilkins,  i.  104. 

■»  No.  48,  Thorpe,  ii.  58. 

■^  Cone.  Agath.  47  ;  Hard.  ii.  1003. 

"  Cone.  Agath.  47.  Cone.  Aurel.  i.  Can.  26;  Hard.  ii.  1011.  Cone. 
Aurel.  iii.  can.  29.     Hard.  ii.  1428. 

"  Appendix  to  S.  August,  vol.  v.  Serm.  265.  3 ;  266.  2. 

8  lb.  Serm.  281.  2;  173,  4;  174.  8.  "  lb.  Serm.  142.  7. 


PEACTICAL  CONCLUSIONS.  325 

important  step  in  our  ascent  from  the  eighth  century  to  primitive 
times,  because  Bingham  fixes  upon  it  as  the  era  of  a  change  in 
the  practice  of  the  Church.  He  seems  to  have  considered,  that 
the  custom  of  allowing  men  to  partake  in  the  Sacrifice  when 
they  did  not  partake  in  the  Sacrament,  was  introduced  between 
the  Council  of  Agde  and  the  time  of  St.  Chrysostom.  This 
opinion  is  grounded  upon  a  passage  in  St.  Chrysostom's  third 
Homily  on  the  Ephesians,  in  which  he  arraigns  the  conduct  of 
those  who  attended  the  Holy  Eucharist  at  Easter,  or  some  other 
great  feast,  while  they  lived  carelessly  during  the  rest  of  the 
year.  "  Observe,"  he  says,  "  the  vast  inconsistency  of  the  thing. 
At  the  other  times  ye  come  not,  no,  not  though  often  ye  are 
clean :  but  at  Easter,  however  flagrant  an  act  ye  may  have 
committed,  ye  come."  The  fault  appears  to  have  been  prevalent 
in  his  day ;  in  an  early  Homily  ^  at  Antioch  he  complains,  that 
it  was  the  custom  of  many  to  communicate  on  festivals,  rather 
than  when  they  were  themselves  prepared.  In  his  Homily  on 
the  Ephesians,  therefore,  he  puts  the  following  dilemma  :  if  men 
are  living  in  sin  they  ought  to  be  excommunicated,  and  so  in- 
terdicted from  taking  part  in  the  more  solemn  prayers;  but  if 
they  are  not  living  in  sin  they  ought  to  communicate.  "Thou 
hast  declared  thyself  to  be  of  the  number  of  them  that  are 
worthy,  by  not  dej)arting  with  them  that  are  unworthy.  "Why 
stay,  and  yet  not  partake  of  the  table  ?" 

It  is  plain  enough  from  this  address,  that  the  regular  atten- 
dance which  had  existed  in  the  Primitive  age  had  been  generally 
abandoned :  the  Church  and  the  world  had  interpenetrated  and 
influenced  one  another ;  so  that  the  same  Homily  says :  "  in 
vain  is  the  daily  sacrifice,  in  vain  do  we  stand  before  the  altar ; 
there  is  no  one  to  partake."  But  it  is  essential  to  Bingham's 
argument  to  show,  not  only  that  St.  Chrysostom  complained  of 
the  abuse,  but  what  was  the  nature  of  the  remedy  which  he 
suggested.  Though  he  could  not  have  wished  all  the  Christians 
of  Antioch  or  Constantinople  to  communicate  daily  in  their 
existing  state,  he  doubtless  wished  and  urged  them  to  qualify 
^  De  Baptismo  Christi,  vol.  ii.  p.  373. 


326  PRACTICAL  CONCLUSIONS. 

themselves  for  such  a  blessing.  But  what  did  he  propose  in  the 
meantime  ?  Did  he  only  tell  them  that  they  ought  all  to  com- 
municate ;  or  did  he  exclude  those  from  the  sacrifice  who 
excluded  themselves  from  the  sacrament?  "Was  his  complaint 
that  they  took  jiart  in  the  one,  or  that  they  abstained  from 
taking  part  in  the  other  ?  No  doubt  some  of  his  words  might 
be  taken  either  way ;  but  his  concluding  remarks  show  that  his 
complaint  was  not  for  what  men  did,  but  for  what  they  left 
undone.  "  That  I  may  not  then  be  the  means  of  increasing  your 
condemnation,  I  entreat  you  not  to  forbear  coming,  but  to  render 
yourself  worthy  both  of  l)eing  present  and  of  approaching." ' 

St.  Chrysostom  could  hardly  have  used  these  words,  if  his 
object  had  been  not  to  induce  all  to  communicate,  but  to  exclude 
those  who  were  negligent  in  doing  so,  from  the  Chiistian  sacri- 
fice. If  this  last  had  been  his  intention,  he  would  surely  have 
observed,  that  the  one  of  these  duties  could  not  be  performed 
without  the  simultaneous  performance  of  the  other.  For  this 
Avould  have  been  the  legitimate  argument  to  emjDloy  against 
those  who  attempted  to  separate  them.  But  on  this  point  he 
says  not  a  syllable :  his  whole  argument  is  addressed  merely  to 
the  duty  of  receiving,  if  men  are  in  a  state  of  grace.  He  is 
reasoning  against  those,  who  were  contented  to  come  once  or 
twice  a  year  to  the  Holy  Eucharist.  Such  persons,  he  says, 
cannot  be  living  such  lives  as  fit  them  to  take  part  in  the 
Church's  prayers.  So  that  it  by  no  means  follows  that  lie  would 
have  spoken  so  severely  of  those  who  commonly  were  com- 
municants, if  some  temporary  circumstances  had  rendered  them 
unprepared  for  daily  participation. 

But  it  may  be  said,  St.  Chrysostom's  words  represent  prayer 
and  Eucharist  to  be  so  completely  identical,  that  those  who  were 
unprepared  for  the  one  must  be  unprepared  for  the  other. 
"  Why  stay,  and  yet  not  partake  of  the  table  ?  I  am  unworthy, 
thou  wilt  say.  Then  art  thou  also  as  unfit  for  that  communion 
thou  hast  had  in  the  prayers."  This  miglit  be  true  enougli  of 
those  who  attended  only  once  a  year,  but  that  St.  Chrysostom 
^  Horn.  iii.  5,  in  Ephes.  vol.  xi.  p.  24. 


PEACTICAL  CONCLUSIONS.  327 

did  not  consider  the  two  things  to  be  entirely  equal,  is  obvious 
from  his  own  conduct.  For  when  some  monks  who  had  been 
expelled*  from  Alexandria  by  Theophilus  came  to  Constantinople, 
"  he  would  not  give  them  communion  in  the  mysteries,"  it  is 
said,  "  till  their  case  had  been  judicially  decided ;  but  he  allowed 
them  to  partake  in  the  prayers.^  Clearly,  then,  he  must  have 
supposed  that  some  diifereuce  existed  between  the  one  and  the 
other,  though  he  might  think  that  men  were  unfit  to  take  part 
in  the  prayers,  who  were  habitual  neglecters  of  the  sacrament. 
And  such  was  the  judgment  of  the  contemporary  Council  of 
Toledo  (a.d.  400),  which,  while  ordering  the  clergy  to  attend 
the  daily  sacrifice,  imposes  penitence  on  "  laymen  who  never 
communicate."  ^ 

These  considerations  render  it  evident  that  St.  Chrysostom's 
words  were  not  intended  to  exclude  men  from  the  sacrifice,  but 
to  bring  them  to  the  sacrament.  Neither  does  any  other  sup- 
position accord  with  the  fact,  that  a  hundred  years  later  it  was 
an  universal  custom  to  attend  the  one,  when  men  were  unpre- 
pared to  attend  the  other.  How  should  such  a  custom  have 
arisen  without  leaving  traces  of  its  origin?  The  universal 
tendency  of  human  affairs  is  to  fall  back  and  decay ;  and 
nothing  is  more  natural,  therefore,  than  that  the  daily  recep- 
tion of  the  Christian  mysteries,  which  had  prevailed  during  the 
fervour  of  the  Apostolic  age,  should  insensibly  cease  to  be  the 
rule  of  ordinary  Christians.  Nor  is  it  strange  that  when  the 
Church  had  enjoyed  a  hundred  years  more  of  worldly  patronage, 
this  negligence  should  excite  less  indignation  than  it  did  in 
"  the  glorious  preacher," 

"With  soul  of  zeal  and  lips  of  flame." 

It  was  probable,  therefore,  that  the  neglect  of  the  sacrament, 
which  had  been  tolerated  in  the  time  of  St.  Chrysostom,  would 

^  Socrates,  vi.  9.  The  same  may  be  inferred  from  S.  Chrys.  Hom.  ix. 
on  the  Statues.  (Ox.  Transl.  p.  159.)  He  there  speaks  to  persons  as 
present  at  the  Sacrifice,  who  could  not  be  designing  to  communicate,  in- 
asmuch as  they  were  not  fasting. 

2  Cone.  Tol.  i.  Canon  13,  Hard.  i.  p.  991. 


828  PRACTICAL  CONCLUSIONS. 

become  almost  the  established  rule  in  the  time  of  Caesarius. 
(Though  it  should  be  observed  that  the  Council  of  Agde  re- 
quired reception  at  least  three  times  a  year.  Can.  18.)  But 
a  new  habit  of  attending  the  sacrifice  could  not  have  been 
introduced  in  this  manner  without  observation.  How  should  it 
have  arisen  unless  it  had  been  recommended  by  Bishops,  and 
enjoined  by  Councils?  To  impose  a  new  duty  to  which  men 
have  been  imaccustomed,  is  not  so  easy  as  to  allow  an  old  one  to 
fall  into  neglect.  How  came  this  new  rule  not  to  be  noticed  in 
those  great  Councils  which  were  held  during  the  middle  of  the 
fifth  centuiy,  nor  by  those  distinguished  men,  who  had  been 
formed  in  the  school  of  St.  Augustin,  and  who  lived  to  its  close  ? 
The  neglect  of  which  St.  Chrysostom  comj)lained,  may  have  be- 
come more  inveterate  during  another  century  ;  but  the  interval 
does  not  sufl&ce  for  the  silent  introduction  of  a  custom,  which 
previously  had  been  wholly  unknown. 

The  conclusion  is,  then,  that  those  careless  members  of  the 
Church,  who  were  attracted  by  St.  Chrysostom's  preaching, 
though  they  were  sharply  rebiiked  for  communicating  only  once 
or  twice  a  year,  were  not  excluded  from  the  daily  offering  of  the 
Christian  sacrifice.  Indeed,  it  has  been  shown  that  St.  Chry- 
sostom granted  this  permission  as  a  privilege  to  those  to  whom 
he  was  unable  to  grant  full  communion.  And  in  one  of  his 
homilies,  where  he  comjilains  of  those  who  came  to  hear  the 
sermon,  and  departed  before  the  celebration  of  the  Holy 
Eucharist,  he  dwells  exclusively  upon  the  fact  that  "  Chi'ist 
was  about  to  exhibit  Himself  in  the  sacred  mysteries,"  ^  and  that 
superior  efficacy  attended  public  prayer.  So  that  his  object 
must  have  been  to  induce  men  to  take  part  in  the  sacrament ; 
but  if  this  could  not  be  effected,  not  to  exclude  them  from  the 
sacrifice.  And  if  such  was  the  usage  in  the  time  of  St.  Chry- 
sostom, it  must  have  been  the  usage  during  the  two  centuries 
which  preceded  his  birth ;  since  it  is  admitted  on  all  hands, 
that  whatever  diminution  there  may  have  been  in  the  earnest- 

^  De  Incoinprehens.  iii.  6,  vol.  i.  p.  469. 


PEACTICAL  CONCLUSIONS.  329 

ness  of  her  members,  yet  that  no  alteration  had  as  yet  taken 
place  in  the  principle  of  the  Church's  ritual. 

Now,  before  proceeding  to  trace  the  subject  into  this  earlier 
period,  it  is  necessary  to  make  two  observations ;  first,  that  the 
Church's  rule  undoubtedly  was,  that  all  Christians  should  take 
part  both  in  the  sacrament  and  the  sacrifice  ;  secondly,  that 
none  except  members  'of  her  communion  were  allowed  to  be 
present  at  either.  The  first  is  obvious,  not  only  from  such 
statements  as  those  which  have  been  quoted  from  St.  Chry- 
sostom  ;  but  likewise  from  the  eighth  Apostolical  Canon,  which 
sentences  a  clerk  to  suspension  if  he  does  not  communicate  when 
the  oblation  is  offered,  unless  he  can  assign  a  sufiicient  reason. 
And,  therefore,  when  a  sort  of  model  service  is  described  in  the 
Apostolical  Constitutions  (ii.  57,  viii.  13),  the  Church  is  sup- 
posed to  consist  exclusively  of  devout  persons,  who  would  all 
exert  their  full  privilege  of  receiving  Our  Lord's  Body  and 
Blood.  But  again,  none  who  were  out  of  the  Church's  com- 
munion were  allowed  to  be  present.  For  all  ancient  Liturgies 
were  distinct  in  requiring,  that  those  who  were  not  communi- 
cants should  leave  the  Church  before  the  celebration  of  the  Holy 
Eucharist.  But  to  be  communicants,  it  was  not  necessary  to 
receive  every  day :  this  may  have  been  the  custom  in  the  age 
of  the  Apostles ;  but  it  was  never  enjoined.  The  only  rules 
imposed  upon  the  laity  were  such  as  those  of  the  Council  of 
Sardica  (can.  11),  that  "men  should  be  excluded  from  Church- 
membership  if  they  absented  themselves  from  Church  for  three 
weeks  together  ;"  ^  or  again  if  they  came  to  Church,  but  "  never 
communicated."  [Pii"st  Council  of  Toledo,  can.  13.]  Hence, 
says  "Waterland,   Infants  were  considered   in  one  sense  to  be 

'  The  Council  in  Trullo,  which  re-enacted  this  order,  can.  80,  says 
nothing  of  communicating,  but  only  orders  the  laity  to  come  together 
once  in  three  Sundays.  So  Balsamon  understands  it :  he  speaks  of  the 
laity  as  ordered  to  meet  and  pray  together.  Beveriilge,  vol.  i.  p.  250. 
Theodore,  in  his  Penitentiary  (44),  seems  to  suppose  that  they  were 
obliged  to  communicate  (Thorpe,  vol.  ii.  p.  51) ;  though  he  may  possibly 
have  used  the  word  in  that  more  general  sense  of  conununicating  in 
prayers,  in  which  it  was  employed  by  the  Council  of  Nice.  Canons,  11, 
13,  &c. 


330  PKACTICAL  CONCLUSIONS. 

"communicants,  though  they  lived  not  to  partake  of  the 
Eucharist." ' 

Wlien  it  is  maintained  then,  that  in  the  ancient  Church  men 
took  part  in  the  sacrifice  who  did  not  take  part  in  the  sacra- 
ment, the  assertion  must  be  quahfied  by  the  two  preceding 
considerations.  The  custom,  that  is,  was  permitted  rather  than 
enjoined :  this  partial  employment  of  tlie  Church's  ritual  was 
only  a  concession  to  the  weakness  of  those,  Avho  fell  short  of  the 
full  vigour  of  the  Christian  life.  But  it  was  a  concession  of 
which  none  might  avail  themselves  but  those  who  were  mem- 
bers of  the  Church :  it  was  an  indulgence  which  was  awarded 
to  those  who  continued  to  be  her  children.  And  Avith  these 
qualifications,  there  is  every  reason  to  suppose  that  the  practice 
had  existed  from  the  beginning.  For  it  must  be  observed,  First 
— that  the  ministration  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  appears  to  have 
been  the  only  public  ritual  coeval  with  the  Church.  Secondly — 
that  it  was  not  contemplated  that  any  one  who  was  in  com- 
munion with  the  Church  should  go  out  before  the  conclusion  of 
the  service.  Thirdly — that  we  find  rules  to  have  been  laid 
down  in  some  places  which  rendered  it  impossible  that  every 
one  should  communicate  daily,  and  that  it  is  indisputable  that 
many  who  did  not  communicate  were  allowed  to  remain. 
Fourthly — that  there  are  no  ancient  canons  of  general  obliga- 
tion, which  order  either  that  every  one  should  receive,  or  that 
those  who  were  unprepared  to  receive,  should  go  away. 

First — We  hear  of  no  public  ritual  -  in  the  first  ages,  except 
that  which  was  connected  with  the  Eucharistic  Office.  So  it 
certainly  was  in  the  Apostle's  time.  "The  disciples  came 
together  to  break  bread."  And  so  does  St,  Paul  speak  of  the 
Holy  Eucharist  as  that  which  men  might  be  expected  to  solem- 
nize, "  when  ye  come  together  into  one  place."  The  case  was 
the  same,  according  to  Justin   Martyr,  in  the  next   century. 

'  Inquiry  concerning  Infant  Communion,  Works,  vol.  ix.  p.  488. 

-  Tliis  circumstance,  together  with  the  fact  that  the  Holy  Eucharist 
was  then  ministered  daily,  is  the  ground  for  thinking  that  the  word 
XeiTovpyovi'Tojy  ("as  they  ministered  to  the  Lord"),  Acts  xiii.  2,  must 
refer  to  the  Eucharistic  Service. 


PRACTICAL  CONCLUSIONS.  331 

The  only  public  gathering  which  he^  describes,  is  that  for  the 
celebration  of  the  Holy  Eucharist;  and  this  service  was 
solemnized,  according  to  Tertullian,  both  on  the  Station^  days 
and  in  their  nocturnal  assemblies.  *  No  doubt  it  must  have 
been  the  custom  of  Christians  from  the  earliest  ages,  to  meet 
continually  for  the  purpose  of  prayer  and  psalmody  (as  St.  Basil 
describes,  Ep.  207),  but  no  traces  of  anything  resembling  a 
jpuhlic  ritual,  except  the  Eucharistic  Liturgies,  have  come  down 
to  us  from  the  three  first  centuries.  The  only  exception  to 
this  statement  is  the  daily  morning  and  evening  prayer,  which 
occurs  in  the  eighth  Book  of  the  Apostolical  Constitutions,  cap. 
XXXV.  &c.  It  must  be  observed,  however,  that  this  form  of 
daily  prayer  is  not  stated,  even  in  the  Constitutions,  to  be 
intended  as  a  substitute  for  the  Eucharistic  office  ;  it  seems 
rather  designed  to  be  an  additional  form  of  devotion,  for  the 
use  of  those  who  worshipped  together  several  times  a  day. 
Indeed,  if  it  had  been  a  substitute  for  the  Euchai'istic  office,  by 
whom  could  it  have  been  emploj^ed  ?  Not  by  St.  Cyprian 
before  the  Council  of  Nice,  nor  after  it  by  St.  Chrysostom  in  the 
East,  or  St.  Ambrose  in  the  West ;  not  by  St.  Augustin  or 
St.  Jerome  ;  for  it  has  been  shown  that  the  offering  of  the 
Holy  Eucharist  was  their  daily  employment.  These  prayers 
may  have  been  meant,  then,  to  answer  the  same  end  with  the 
devotional  offices,  which  assumed  a  definite  shape,  when  monastic 
institutions  arose  towards  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century,  and 
of  which  we  have  an  account  from  St.  Basil  in  the  fourth,''  and 
from  Cassian  in  the  fifth  century.  So  that  we  must  conclude, 
that  they  were  intended  to  afford  employment  to  those  who 
could  give  their  whole  time  to  God's  service,  but  that  they 
never  took  the  place  of  the  great  act  of  social  worship. 

Besides,  the  Apostolical  Constitutions  are  nothing  but  the 

1  Apol.  i.  65.  ^  De  Oratione,  xiv. 

3  De  Corona  Mit.  iii.  This  seems  to  have  been  the  case  in  Pliny's 
time;  for  he  associates  the  " sacramentum"  with  the  early  assembly  of 
the  Christians,  though  evidently  ignorant  of  its  nature  :  while  the  Agape 
was  celebrated  later  in  the  day." — Epis.  lib.  x.  97. 

*  Ep,  207,  and  Epiphanius  adv.  Hser,  iii.  2,  23,  vol.  i.  p.  1106. 


382  PRACTICAL  CONCLUSIONS. 

literary  exercise  of  some  private  person,  who  has  presumed  to 
put  liis  own  words  into  the  mouths  of  the  Apostles.  The  book 
was  rejected,  therefore,  by  the  second  canon  of  the  Council  in 
Trullo,  and  the  prayers  and  usages  which  it  contains,  are  merely 
the  suggestions  of  an  individual.  So  that  its  liturgical  services 
have  no  claim  to  rank  with  those  which  express  the  usages  and 
faith  of  Apostolical  Churches,  although  they  are  a  valuable  wit- 
ness to  the  opinions  of  the  age  in  which  they  were  composed. 
But  if  we  would  know  what  was  the  mode  of  worsliip  in  the 
third  or  fourth  centuries,  we  must  look  to  the  public  Liturgies. 
Now  their  very  existence  testifies  to  the  truth  of  St.  Chrysos- 
tom's  assertion,  that  "  Our  Passover  is  the  offering  and  sacrifice 
which  is  made  at  every  assembling."  ^  For  the  word  Liturgy, 
or  service,  when  applied  to  a  sacred  or  mystical  j)urpose,  gra- 
dually became  identified  with  the  Eucharistic  Office ;  neither  is 
any  other  handed  down  from  early  times.  So  that  it  was  im- 
possible to  join  in  common  worship  during  the  period  which 
preceded  the  birth  of  St.  Chrysostom,  without  paiiiciimting  in 
the  Eucharistic  action,  because  no  other  soleuui  and  public  ritual 
existed  in  the  Church. 

Secondly — The  preceding  statement  renders  it  evident,  that 
those  who  attended  public  worship  must  have  joined  in  the 
Eucharistic  Office.  "  It  is  equally  certain,  that  no  one  in  com- 
munion with  the  Church  was  allowed  to  depart  till  the  service 
was  concluded.  So  much  may  certainly  be  gathered  from  the 
9th  Apostolical  canon,  and  the  2ud  canon  of  the  Council  of 
Antioch,  whatever  else  they  may  imply.  The  command  may 
not  have  been  always  regarded ;  and  St.  Chi-ysostom  comi^lains 
both  of  those  who  went  away  directly  after  the  sermon,"  and  of 
those  who  went  out  as  soon  as  they  had  themselves  communi- 
cated.^    Yet  the  Rubrics  of  the  ancient  Liturgies  prove  that 

^  "  KaO^  (KaaTTjv  awa^iv." — llom.  adv.  Jud.  iii.  4. 

^  Horn,  de  lucouiprehensibili,  iii.  6,  vol.  i.  p.  469.  In  the  time  of 
Caesarius,  the  Bishop  aj)pears  to  have  pronounced  a  benediction  after  the 
consecration,  for  those  who  did  not  receive. — Sermo  281.  2,  Append,  tu 
S.  Atii).  vol.  V. ;  and  vide  Malnllon  de  Litnnj.  Gull.  i.  4,  p.  35. 

^  Horn,  de  Baptismo  Christi,  iv.  vol.  ii.  p.  374. 


PEACTICAL  CONCLUSIONS.  333 

this  must  have  been  a  local  corruption ;  for  it  appears  that 
those  who  went  out  were  formally  dismissed  by  the  officers  of 
the  Church,  and  none  were  thus  dismissed  except  those  who 
had  not  yet  been  admitted,  or  who  were  excluded  from  the 
Church's  communion.  First  it  was  the  catechumens,  who  were 
not  baptized ;  then  the  various  classes  of  penitents.  In  every 
case  the  deacon  proclaimed,  "  Depart  catechumens  ;  "  or  "  Depart 
those  who  are  in  penance."  "  Let  no  one  remain  who  is  not  in 
communion."  So  that  no  room  remains  for  the  departure  of 
those  who  were  not  under  some  sentence.  And  the  full  provi- 
sion which  is  made  for  what  should  happen,  and  the  exact  rules 
by  which  it  was  defined,  show  that  if  any  omitted  to  remain, 
it  must  have  been  an  irregular  and  unlicensed  proceeding. 

Thirdly — It  is  clear  that  some  members  of  the  Church,  who 
were  present  at  her  j)ublic  prayers,  and  who  must  have  been 
expected  therefore  to  remain  till  the  conclusion  of  the  service, 
neither  did,  nor,  according  to  her  canons,  could  communicate 
daily.  An  instance  has  already  been  adduced  from  the  history 
of  Socrates,  in  which  persons  were  allowed  to  communicate  with 
the  Church's  prayers,  who  were  not  permitted  to  partake  of  the 
mysteries.  Nor  was  this  a  single  case.  When  those  who  were 
subjected  to  penance  had  passed  through  its  three  lower  stages, 
it  was  the  established  usage  not  to  admit  them  at  once  to  the 
full  privileges  of  the  Church,  but  to  allow  them  to  join  in  the 
Eucharistic  prayers  without  communicating.  They  were  called 
consistentes,  co-standers,  because  they  were  allowed  to  worship 
with  the  congregation  at  the  time  of  the  oblation,  though  it  was 
not  partaken  by  themselves.  This  usage  has  the  highest  autho- 
rity, for  it  was  ordained  by  the  Council  of  Nice :  it  is  of  the 
highest  antiquity,  for  it  was  sanctioned  at  the  still  earlier 
Council  of  Ancyra,  a.d.  315.  Those  who  were  admitted  to  this' 
privilege  were  said  "  to  communicate  in  prayer  only,"  ^  or  to 
"  communicate  without  the  oblation."  ^  The  last  words  imply 
probably,  as  was  ordered  by  the  Council  of  Eliberis  (can.  28),  that 

1  Cone.  Nic.  Can.  13  ;  Hard.  i.  330. 
*  Cone.  Aneyr.  Can.  4,  5,  6. 


334  PRACTICAL  CONCLUSIONS. 

those  who  did  not  actually  communicate  should  not  be  allowed 
to  contribute  towards  the  expenses  of  the  offering.  So  that  this 
was  an  incomplete  communion,  which  was  followed  after  a  time, 
as  the  Council  of  Ancyra  expresses  it,  by  "  admission  to  full 
privileges."  Tor  "the  word  communicating,"  says  Bingham 
(xviii.  i.  6),  "  does  not  always  mean  partaking  of  the  Eucharist, 
but  communicating  in  prayers  only,  w  ithout  the  o])lation  ;  wliich 
was  but  an  imjjerfect  sort  of  communion."  From  which  it  follows 
that  while  it  was  considered  to  be  a  loss  to  be  debarred  the  sacra- 
ment, to  be  present  only  at  the  sacrifice  was  supposed  to  be  a  gain. 

The  case  of  the  consist eates,  then,  shows  that  it  was  not  con- 
sidered unlawful  for  those  who  were  disqualified  from  taking 
part  in  the  sacrament,  to  be  present  at  the  sacrifice.  Now  va- 
rious circumstances  of  a  temporary  nature  were  a  disqualifica- 
tion from  receiving.  In  the  African  Church,  many  persons 
were  prevented  from  attending  on  the  station  days,  by  an  un- 
willingness to  break  their  fast.  Tertullian '  advises  them  to 
attend,  but  to  receive,  and  reserve,  instead  of  partaking  of,  the 
Eucharist.  Another  hindx'ance  was  the  opinion  that  St.  Paul's 
advice  to  the  Corinthians  (1  Cor.  vii.  5),  taken  in  conjunction 
with  the  principle  laid  doAvu  under  the  ancient  Covenant  i^Exod. 
xix.  15;  1  Sam.  xxi.  4,  5),  was  a  guide  for  the  conduct  of  mar- 
ried Christians.  And  as  in  many  places  rules  were  laid  douTi 
by  those  in  authority  ^  on  this  subject,  they  could  not  have  re- 
quired the  whole  mass  of  the  jieoplo  to  communicate  daily. 

Fourthly — Now  this  leads  to  the  last  statement,  that  the 
ancient  canons  contain  no  order  of  general  obligation,  either 
that  every  one  should  receive,  or  that  those  who  were  unpre- 
pared to  I'eceive  should  go  away.  On  this  point  it  is  necessary 
to  be  the  more  particular,  because  the  readers  of  Bingham  are 

^  De  Oratione,  14. 

-  Vide  Kesponsa  Canonica  Timotbei,  5  and  13.  Beveridge's  Pandecta 
Can.  vol.  ii.  pt.  i.  166.  1'heodore's  Penitentiary,  xliv.  3.  S.  Jerome  on 
Tit.  i,  vol.  iv.  part  i.  p.  418.  The  same  opinion  is  alluded  to  by  S.  Am- 
brose, De  Cain  et  Abel,  ii.  6,  21,  vol.  i.  p.  216  ;  by  Siricius,  Ep.  4  ; 
Labbe's  Concil.  vol.  ii.  1226 ;  by  Innocent  I.  Ep.  2,  Id.  vol.  iii.  10 ;  by 
S.  Caisarius,  App.  to  B.  Aug,  v.  Serm.  266.  2. 


PRACTICAL  CONCLrSIONS.  335 

led  to  suppose,  that  to  partake  in  the  sacrifice  without  partaking 
in  the  sacrament,  was  prohibited  in  early  times.  The  rules  to 
which  Bingham  refers  are  the  9th  Apostolical  canon,  repeated 
with  some  modification  in  the  2nd  canon  of  the  Council  of  Anti- 
och,  and  by  some  later  Councils ;  and  a  spurious  deci-etal  in  the 
canon  law,  attributed  to  Pope  Auacletus,which  shows,  however, 
says  Bingham  (xv.  iv.  1),  "  the  practice  that  was  then  prevailing 
even  in  the  Boman  Church."  The  decretal  runs  as  follows : 
"After  consecration  let  all  communicate,  who  would  not  be 
cast  out  of  the  Church :  for  so  the  AjDostles  appointed,  and  the 
Holy  Boman  Church  observes  this  custom."  ^ 

It  seems  singular,  at  first  sight,  that  such  a  direction  should 
have  been  given  in  the  eighth  or  ninth  centuries ;  for  the  spu- 
rious decretals,  as  Bingham  says,  express  the  oj)inions  and  prac- 
tices which  prevailed  when  they  were  forged,  and  the  evidence 
which  has  been  adduced  puts  it  beyond  question,  that  before 
that  time  persons  took  part  in  the  sacrifice  when  they  did  not 
partake  of  the  sacrament.  But  the  difiiculty  is  explained  if  we 
turn  to  the  decretal  ^  itself :  the  passage  has  no  reference  what- 
ever, as  the  readers  of  Bingham  might  suppose,  to  the  duties  of 
the  people:  it  is  a  direction  given  to  the  priests  and  deacons 
who  are  in  attendance  on  the  Bishop.  They  are  ordered  to 
communicate  when  the  Bishop  celebrates  the  Holy  Eucharist. 
It  is  only  an  instance,  therefore,  of  the  rule  universally  preva- 
lent in  ancient  times,  by  which  the  Priesthood  were  required  to 
be  habitual  communicants.  Thus  the  first  Council  of  Toledo 
orders  all  clerhs  to  "  attend  the  daily  sacrifice,"  under  pain  of 
deprivation ;  while  it  is  contented  to  order  laymen  to  be  sub- 
jected to  penance  "  if  they  never  communicate."  * 

This  principle  must  be  borne  in  mind,  in  considering  the 
earlier  canons,  to  which  we  now  proceed.  The  8th  and  9th 
canons  of  the  Apostles  are  as  follows.  "  8.  If  any  Bishop, 
Priest,  Deacon,  or  other  member  of  the  clerical  body,  does  not 

^  Gratian  de  Consecrat.  Dist.  ii.  cap.  x. 

^  Anacleti  Epis.  i.  2,  Hard.  i.  65. 

3  Concil.  Tolet.  i.  Can.  5  and  13,  Hard.  i.  991. 


886  PEACTICAL  CONCLUSIONS. 

receive,  when  the  oblation  has  been  offered,  let  him  assign  the 
cause,  and  if  it  be  a  good  one,  let  him  be  pardoned.  If  he  as- 
sign no  cause,  let  him  be  cut  off  from  communion,  as  doing  mis- 
chief to  the  people,  and  raising  suspicion  against  the  offerer, 
as  though  he  has  not  rightly  offered.  9.  All  the  faithful  who 
come  in,  and  hear  the  Scriptures,  but  do  not  continue  for  the 
prayer  and  the  holy  receiving,  ought  to  be  cut  off  from  com- 
munion, as  producing  disorder  in  the  Church."  This  is  quoted 
by  Bingham,  as  though  it  ordered  all  who  were  present  to 
receive  daily ;  which  is  more  than  it  says.  The  officiating  minis- 
ters, indeed,  are  ordered  to  do  so,  unless  they  give  a  satisfactory 
reason  to  the  contrary ;  but  all  which  is  requii-ed  of  the  laity 
is  to  remain  for  the  prayers  and  the  administration.  The  di- 
rection resj)ecting  the  priesthood  would  lead  us  to  expect  that 
more  could  not  be  imposed  upon  the  laity.  For  the  common 
rule  was,  that  the  clergy  were  bound  to  a  far  stricter  observance 
than  the  people :  the  priesthood  is  described  by  St.  Cyprian  as 
those  "  who  daily  solemnize  the  sacrifices  of  God  ;  "  ^  yet  nothing 
is  required  of  them  but  a  conditional  reception.  How,  then, 
could  an  unconditional  reception  be  exacted  daily  from  the  laity? 
The  conclusion,  then,  which  Bingham  derives  from  this  canon, 
and  which  he  founds  upon  the  Latin  Version  of  Dionysius 
Exiguus,  is  not  borne  out  by  the  Greek  original.  Neither  is 
the  existence  of  such  a  general  law  comjiatible  either  with  the 
conduct  of  the  Church  in  regard  to  the  Consistentes,  nor  with 
the  example,  which  has  been  cited  from  the  histoi-y  of  St.  Chry- 
sostom.  So  that  taking  these  canons  by  themselves,  it  seems 
natural  to  interpret  them  as  is  done  by  a  Greek  Scholiast, 
adduced  by  Beveridge.  "  Putting  the  two  canons  together 
we  say,  that  those  who  are  numbered  in  the  sacred  list,  and 
who  minister  in  the  Sacramental  mysteries,  but  do  not  receive 
the  oblation  when  it  is  offered,  are  cut  off,  unless  they  assign 
a  satisfactory  reason.  But  the  consecrated  persons  who  do  not 
go  to  the  altar,  and  handle  what  is  sacred ;  and  all  the  faithful 
laity ;  unless  they  wait,  and  continue  to  the  end,  and  until  that 
^  Ad  Corneliuoii,  liv. 


PKACTICAL  CONCLUSIONS.  837 

which  is  sacred  has  been  received  by  those  who  are  worthy, 
are  cut  oflf  as  irregular.  For  to  say  that  all  of  us — the  faithful 
laity,  and  all  consecrated  persons,  who  do  not  take  part  in  the 
holy  rites,  must  receive  that  which  is  sacred  every  day,  or  if 
not,  be  cut  off,  is  neither  contemplated  by  the  canon,  nor  is  it 
possible.  And  therefore  the  9th  canon  says,  that  the  faithful  who 
do  not  remain  shall  be  punished,  and  does  not  add  the  words 
those  who  do  not  receive.  Understand  the  canons  in  this  way, 
consistently  with  the  2nd  Canon  of  the  Council  of  Antioch."  ^ 

These  canons  are  commented  upon  by  two  other  Greek 
Scholiasts,^  Zonaras  and  Aristenus,  neither  of  whom  affirms 
that  reception,  as  well  as  attendance,  was  required  from  the 
laity ;  though  Zonaras  refers  to  the  well-known  fact,  that 
frequent  communion  was  prevalent  in  early  times.  Balsamon, 
however,  understands  the  canon  to  have  had  the  wider  sense 
attributed  to  it  by  Bingham,  and  expresses  surprise  at  its 
harshness.  But  all  the  commentators  ^  connect  these  canons 
with  the  2nd  Canon  *  of  the  Council  of  Antioch,  which  gives 
the  direction  a  wholly  different  meaning  from  that  assigned 
to  it  by  Bingham.  For  this  Antiochene  Canon  is  not  the 
expression  of  a  general  principle,  or  designed  to  guard  against 
any  separation  of  the  sacrifice  from  the  sacrament,  but  it  is 
merely  a  local  injunction,  founded  on  the  prevalence  of  a  par- 
ticular heresy,  and  its  censure  is  directed  against  those  who 
"  turn  away  from  communion  in  a  disorderly  manner."  There 
were  those  in  the  East  at  that  time,  who  refused  to  partake 
of  the  Holy  Eucharist,  if  it  had  been  consecrated  by  a  married 
priest,''  and  who  on  this  and  other  pretexts,  had  formed  them- 

^  Beveridge,  Pandecta  Canon  am,  vol.  i.  p.  6. 

^  Beveridge,  ubi  sup.  ^  Vide  Beveridge,  vol.  i.  pp.  6,  431,  432. 

■*  "All  who  go  into  the  Church  of  God,  and  hear  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
but  do  not  communicate  in  prayer  with  the  people,  or  turn  away  in  an 
irregular  manner  from  the  receiving  of  the  Eucharist — shall  be  cast  out 
from  the  Church." — Hard.  i.  593.  The  Scholiast  says:  "the  Fathers 
order  those  to  be  cast  out  of  the  Church  who  rfefuse  to  take  part  in  the 
prayers,  and  to  communicate,  irregularly,  that  is,  without  any  satisfactory 
cause,  but  in  an  irregular  and  groundless  manner." — Zonaras  in  Beveridge, 
vol.  i.  p.  432. 

*  Coun.  of  Gangra,  Can.  4,  5,  6,  &c.     Hard.  i.  534. 


SS8  PKACTICAL  CONCLUSIONS. 

selves  into  a  scliismatical  body,  which  coiitiuucd  to  attend  the 
public  worship  of  the  Church,  but  communicated  in  private. 
Against  this  practice  the  2ud  Canon  of  Antioch  was  aimed; 
and  if  it  be  supposed  that  the  8th  and  9th  Apostolical  Canons 
were  in  like  manner  only  local  Constitutions  in  the  Eastern 
Church,  which  have  outlived  the  particular  purj)ose  for  which 
they  were  designed,  they  may  no  doubt  be  interpreted  in  that 
stricter  sense  which  Bingham  assigns  to  them.  Such  an  in- 
terpretation is  rendered  plausible  by  the  reason  which  they 
assign — a  fear  of  disorder  in  the  Church,  and  the  suspicion 
which  may  be  cast  upon  the  party  by  whom  the  oblation  is 
offered.  This  circumstance  would  seem  to  imply  that  the 
object  of  the  canons  in  question  was  merely,  like  that  of 
the  2nd  Canon  of  Antioch,  to  put  a  stop  to  the  irregular 
practices  of  the  Eustatians,  who  desired  to  take  jjart  in  the 
Eucharistic  oblation,^  while  they  received  the  Holy  Eucharist 
from  some  priest  who  had  no  mission  from  the  Bishop  of  the 
Diocese. 

It  is  plain,  then,  that  the  grounds  produced  by  Bingham, 
are  no  proof  that  it  was  the  intention  of  the  ancient  Church 
to  exclude  communicants  from  the  Sacrifice,  whenever  they 
were  unprepared  for  the  reception  of  the  Sacrament.  For 
the  decretal  of  Anacletus  refers  not  to  the  laity,  but  only  to 
the  clergy ;  while  the  2nd  Canon  of  Antioch  was  not  designed 
to  express  any  general  princijDle,  but  was  merely  a  local  con- 
stitution, intended  to  correct  a  particular  ii-regularity ;  and  it 
is  only  by  supposing  that  the  8th  and  9th  Apostolical  Canons 
were  local  constitutions  also,  that  they  can  be  made  to  bear 
that  sense,  for  which  Bingham  contends.  So  that  if  this  is 
indeed  their  meaning,  they  cannot  be  supposed  to  express  any 
ffoneial  law  of  the  ancient  Chmxli.     Such   a   law   would   be 

'  A  similar  reas^on  may  have  led  to  the  prohibition  against  receiving 
the  oblations  of  those  who  were  not  coumiuuicants. — Cone.  Eliherit.  Can. 
"28.  Yet  it  was  sometimes  done :  as  S.  Basil  received  the  oblation  of  the 
Emperor  Valens. —  Greg.  Naz.  Or.  xx.  p.  351,  and  Theod.  Hist.  iv.  19. 
On  that  occasion  Valens  seems  to  have  been  present  at  the  Eucharistic 
office  (for  it  was  the  Epiphany)  without  communicating. 


.      PEACTICAL  CONCLUSIONS.  339 

incompatible  with  the  fact,  that  the  Consistentes  were  forbidden 
to  partake  of  the  sacrament,  while  they  were  expected  to  be 
jjresent  at  the  sacrifice.  It  has  been  shown,  too,  that  dui'ing 
the  earliest  ages,  the  public  ritual  of  the  Church  consisted' 
exclusively  of  the  Eucharistic  Office ;  now  while  there  were 
occasions  on  which  men  were  unprepared  to  partake,  it  was 
never  contemplated  that  those  who  were  in  communion  with 
the  Church  should  go  away.  "We  may  conclude,  then,  that  to 
allow  the  constant  presence  of  communicants  at  the  Eucharistic 
sacrifice,  though  daily  reception  were  left  a  matter  of  advice, 
and  not  of  commandment,  would  not  be  at  variance  with  the 
laws  of  the  Church,  any  more  than  with  the  typical  ordinances 
of  the  tabernacle  :  it  would  not  be  opposed  either  to  the  shadows 
of  the  Law,  or  the  realities  of  the  Gospel. 

Thirdly — The  last  question,  however,  remains  :  what  is  its 
benefit?  Now  the  first  answer  to  this  is,  that  those  who 
forbid  the  practice  ought  to  show  it  to  be  unlawful.  Here 
is  a  custom  which  has  existed,  as  it  would  seem,  from  the  very 
commencement  of  the  Church,  and  which  was  for  the  first  time 
forbidden,  through  the  influence  of  the  Zuinglian  party,  at  the 
end  of  fifteen  centuries  and  a  half.  Surely  such  a  circumstance 
throws  the  burthen  of  proof  upon  the  excluding  party.  Why 
should  men  be  debarred  that  liberty  which  was  allowed  them  in 
the  primitive  Church,  unless  it  can  be  proved  to  be  unlawful  ? 

But  the  advantages  which  individuals  might  draw  from  such 
a  custom  are  obvious.  The  moral  benefits  to  be  derived  from 
the  holy  associations  of  such  a  season  are  incalculable.  If  that 
which  is  bestowed  in  holy  ordinances  is  the  Presence  of  Christ, 
can  it  be  possible  to  overestimate  the  blessing  of  drawing  so 
near  to  Him?  Are  men  so  independent  of  the  influences  of 
place  and  circumstance,  as  to  render  them  indifi'erent  to  an 
occasion  when  heaven  and  earth  are  truly  brought  into  relation, 
and  when  the  sublime  realities  which  are  habitual  to  the  one, 
extend  themselves  for  a  passing  season  to  the  other  ? 

But  the  greatest  benefit  which,  according  to  the  ancient 
writers,  is  attained  by  individuals  through  participation  in  the 

Z  2 


340  PRACTICAL  CONCLUSIONS. 

Eucharistic  sacrifice,  is  the  acceptableness  which  it  confers 
upon  their  prayers.  Not  only  are  their  emotions  more  intense, 
but  their  petitions  are  more  efficacious.  And  what  can  be  of 
more  import  to  the  supplicant,  than  that  he  should  attain  his 
request?  Therefore  does  St.  Chrysostom  represent  not  men 
only,  but  angels  and  archangels,  as  feeling  an  especial  interest 
in  the  Church's  oblation,  because  "then  the  occasion  aids  their 
petitions,  and  the  offering  gives  them  help."  ^  But  it  is  to  the 
saints  on  earth  that  this  opportunity  is  so  peculiarly  precious, 
because  it  is  the  bestowing  for  a  season  of  that  pi'ivilege,  which 
is  perpetually  afforded  to  the  saints  in  bliss :  it  is  a  foretaste  of 
the  beatific  vision ;  heaven  and  earth  are  for  a  moment  united ; 
inasmuch  as  the  Incarnate  Lord,  whose  manifested  Intercession 
is  the  central  point  of  the  one,  bestows  Himself  by  actual  Pre- 
sence in  the  other.  And  is  it  not  a  signal  blessing  to  be  allowed  to 
co-opex'ate  in  those  prayers,  which  are  rendered  acceptable  by  the 
immediate  Presence  of  the  Great  Victim ;  and  wherein  the  peti- 
tions of  the  Church  on  earth  are  blended  with  those  of  the  Church 
in  heaven  ?  "  When  the  whole  people  stands  with  uplifted  hands, 
a  priestly  assembly,  and  that  awful  sacrifice  lies  displayed,  how 
shall  we  not  prevail  with  Grod  by  our  entreaties  ?  "  ^ 

But  beyond  any  benefit  which  may  accrue  to  individuals, 
this  practice  has  its  importance  for  the  collective  Church.  It 
was  the  exclusion  of  the  mass  of  men  from  the  Christian  sacri- 
fice, which  made  it  necessary  to  substitute  other  offices,  by  which 
the  daily  Eucharist  has  been  practically  superseded.  Now  no 
cii'cumstance  has  had  more  influence  than  this  upon  the  belief 
of  the  jDcople.  We  may  trace  to  it  the  poj^ular  conviction,  which 
no  argument  can  eff'ace,  that  congregations  meet  together  merely 
for  the  quickening  of  their  feelings,  or  for  the  imparting  of  in- 
struction, and  not  that  they  may  obtain  their  petitions.  And 
thus  the  notion  of  the  Church's  work,  as  an  actual  operative 
transaction,  is  well-nigh  lost. 

The  effect  of  such  errors  in  diminishing  men's  practical  sense 

^  Horn,  de  Incomprehensibili,  iii.  7,  vol.  i.  p.  470. 
^  S.  Chrysos.  Horn.  iii.  4,  in  Philip. 


PEACTICAL  CONCLUSIONS.  341 

of  the  Mediation  of  Christ,  it  is  impossible  to  overestimate. 
The  Mediation  of  Christ  means  that  work  which  He  effects 
through  His  human  nature,  because  it  is  not  the  interference  of 
any  casual  intercessor,  but  results  from  that  position  which  He 
has  vouchsafed  to  take  between  God  and  mankind.  He  is  the 
sole  Mediator  between  God  and  man,  because  He  only  can 
stand  midway  between  both.  Let  the  efficacy,  then,  of  His 
man's  nature  be  forgotten,  and  His  Mediation  is  lost.  Yet  how 
does  the  efficacy  of  His  man's  nature  display  itself,  save  through 
those  sacraments  wherein  He  bestows  Himself  as  the  sustenance 
of  His  people,  and  presents  Himself  as  their  pei-petual  Inter- 
cessor with  God  ?  So  that  when  the  Holy  Eucharist  ceases  to 
be  regarded  as  a  real  action,  wherein  Christ's  very  Presence  is 
exhibited  on  earth,  and  whereby  prayer  is  truly  rendered  avail- 
able, men  fall  back  upon  some  other  system  of  approaching  to 
God,  and  with  a  change  in  belief  comes  a  change  in  the  principle 
of  worshijD.  Thus  do  individual  prayer,  and  private  faith,  and 
single  piety,  take  the  place  of  that  collective  action,  whei'eby  the 
whole  Church  was  supposed  in  ancient  days  to  offer  itself  to 
God  ;  and  are  supposed  not  only  to  be  necessary,  which  they  are, 
to  the  Christian  life,  but  to  have  right  in  themselves  to  accept- 
ance. Whereas  nothing  has  a  claim  to  acceptance  but  the  sacri- 
fice of  Christ ;  and  the  Church's  claim  is  that  she  is  His 
mystical  body ;  and  it  is  the  oblation  of  the  perfect  Head,  which 
gives  efficacy  to  that  of  the  imperfect  members.  For  "  the 
Church  offers  to  God  the  symbols  of  Our  Lord's  Body  and 
Blood,  sanctifying  the  whole  lump  through  the  first-fruits."  ^ 

Upon  this  principle  will  depend  our  part  in  that  great  con- 
troversy between  faith  and  rationalism,  which  grows  more 
imminent  every  day.  The  question  at  issue  between  these  tw  o 
systems  is,  whether  the  hopes  of  the  woi'ld  are  to  turn  upon  the 
order  of  grace,  or  the  order  of  nature.  If  the  progress  of  society 
is  to  lead  to  individual  improvement  and  national  reform,  if  it  is 
thus  that  men  are  to  be  emancipated  from  the  debasing  bonds  of 
sense,  and  the  soul  is  to  hold  nearer  intercourse  with  that  Great 
1  Theodoret  in  Psalm  109.  4. 


842  PRACTICAL  CONCLUSIONS. 

Being,  from  whom  it  originally  proceeded — then  the  law  and 
system  of  the  world  contains  within  it  the  seed  of  a  moral  re- 
surrection, and  the  order  of  nature  leads  up  to  God.  But  those 
whose  hope  is  in  the  order  of  grace,  must  accept  all  those  great 
truths,  which  are  involved  in  the  New  Creation  of  mankind 
througli  Christ  Jesus.  The  renewal  of  the  individual  heart,  the 
guidance  of  the  collective  judgment,  the  right  of  approach  to 
Him  from  whom  mankind  has  been  separated  by  sin — all  must 
come  from  their  relation  to  that  New  Head  of  our  race,  who  re- 
built in  Himself  the  ruins  of  Humanity.  Thus  does  a  super- 
natural system,  and  a  new  law,  take  the  place  of  that  original 
relation  to  God,  which  resulted  from  our  mental  constitution. 
Through  the  Mediation  of  Christ  are  gifts  bestowed  upon  men  ; 
through  the  Mediation  of  Christ,  is  our  access  to  the  Father. 
He  is  the  Saviour  of  His  Body  mystical ;  and  its  offering  is 
rendered  acceptable,  because  He  identifies  it  with  the  actual 
oJBFering  of  Himself. 

Such  was  the  faith  of  that  early  age,  when  the  fresh  zeal  of 
the  Christian  community  had  not  been  chilled  by  unbelief,  or 
darkened  by  controversy.  Its  cardinal  principle  was  a  finn 
conviction  of  the  reality  of  consecration,  as  a  process  whereby 
things  earthly,  and  the  order  of  nature,  are  superseded  by 
things  heavenly,  and  by  the  order  of  grace.  So  that  the  gilt 
bestowed  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  bestowed  in  and  through  tlie 
consecrated  elements.  And  this  gift  is  nothing  less  than  the 
presence  of  that  Incarnate  God,  whose  Flesh  and  Blood  are  the 
media  whereby  He  imparts  Himself.  His  Presence  is  a  Real 
Presence,  though  not  bestgwed  according  to  tlie  order  of  nature  ; 
the  visible  is  not  more  truly  present  than  the  Invisible  :  the 
sacr amentum,  which  addresses  itself  to  the  sense,  than  the  res 
sacramenti,  which  addresses  itself  to  faith  and  to  the  mind. 
And  hence  does  the  continual  sacrifice  of  the  Church  derive  its 
value,  because  the  offering  which  is  presented  on  earth  is  one 
with  that  which  is  presented  in  Heaven. 


INDEX. 


Absolution,  necessary  after  deadly  sin,  298. 

Albertinus,  unfairness  of  his  book,  181. 

Anastasius  Sinaita,  omitted  the  sacramentum,  88  ;    speaks  of  Our  Lord's 

Body  as  corruptible,  197  ;  of  the  elevation  of  the  Holy  Eucharist,  214. 
Antiquity,  its  authority,  2  ;  by  whom  peculiarly  expressed,  3. 
Antitype,  the  name  not  applicable  to  the  Holy  Eucharist  at  large,  but 

only  to  its  external  portion,  164,  198. 
Aquinas,   did  not  suppose  elements  changed,   as  objects  of  sense,  89  ;    or 

that  their  nutritire  power  was  withdrawn,  209. 
Aristotelian   philosophy,  why  employed  by  schoolmen  in   explaining  the 

sacraments,  209. 
Augustin,  S.,   framer  of  the    scientific  phraseology  respecting   the   Holy 

Eucharist,  88  ;    some   of  his  phrases   admit  a   Calvinistic    sense,    158  ; 

but  believed  that  sacramentum  and  res  sacramenfi  always   went  to- 
gether, 158;  some  expressions  of  his  explained,  170. 

Baptism,  exists  only  in  the  act  of  administration,  1 6  ;  does  not  depend  on 
consecration  of  elements,  like  the  Holy  Eucharist,  73,  283  ;  has  no  res 
sacramenfi  ;  and  therefore  Christ's  presence  in  it  is  not  dependent  on 
the  presence  of  His  Body,  123,  124.  Christ's  Body  only  said  to  be 
present  in  it,  because  of  the  real  union  with  Himself,  123,  187,  283, 
292 ;  why  accompanied  with  more  express  promises  than  the  Holy 
Eucharist,  124,  280  ;  why  a  necessary  preliminary  to  the  Holy  Eucha- 
rist, 295  ;  its  normal  state  seen  in  the  case  of  infant,  not  of  adult  Bap- 
tism, 103  ;  expressions  of  the  Fathers  respecting  it,  how  distinguished 
from  those  respecting  the  Holy  Eucharist,  188. 

Calvin,  professedly  dissatisfied  with  the  theory  of  Zuinglius,  98,  172 ; 
rested  the  efiicacy  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  exclusively  on  the  intention 
of  the  Giver,  23  ;  supposed  the  elements  to  be  mere  seals  or  pledges, 
25,  102  ;  the  validity  of  which  depended  upon  God's  secret  decree,  27, 
102,  156  ;  did  not  really  ascribe  any  specific  efficacy  to  sacraments, 
178  ;  his  system  in  reality  answered  a  political  purpose,  180,  by  en- 
abling men  to  accept  the  same  words  in  opposite  senses,  181. 

C'atechetical  writers  not  obstructed  by  the  disciplina  arcani,  51. 

Christian  Faith,  its  three  main  doctrines,  128. 


844  INDEX. 

Christ  present  in  Baptism  by  spiritual  power,  in  the  Holy  Eucharist 
through  His  Body  and  Blood,  74,  191,  283  ;  His  presence  in  the  Holy 
Eucharist  owing  to  the  presence  of  His  liodij,  123. 

Christ's  Body,  implies  refeience  to  His  man's  nature,  63;  present  natur- 
ally in  heaven,  109  ;  supernaturally  in  Holy  Eucharist,  110-12,  12(5, 
151-3  ;  not  corruptible  or  capable  of  being  broken,  197  ;  the  food  of 
the  mind,  not  the  body,  199,  209,  288  ;  leads  to  the  augmentation  of 
the  mystical  Body  of  Christ,  not  of  the  receiver's  body,  289 ;  present 
subsffuitiaUij  in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  121,  125,  154,  155  ;  not  an  object 
to  the  senses,  but  under  the  form  of  bread  and  wine,  116  ;  implies 
the  presence  of  His  soul  and  Godhead,  64  ;  the  mine  Body  which 
suffered  on  the  Cross,  65,  79,  196  ;  worshipped  in  the  Holy  Eucharist, 
211,  by  reason  of  the  Godhead  with  which  it  is  united,  216  ;  received 
by  all  communicants,  218,  though  its  henefit  not  reaped  without  faith, 
288  ;  the  instrmnent  through  which  He  bestows  His  gifts,  119,  285-6  ; 
the  medium  of  oneness  with  Deity,  2S5  ;  a  fit  antidote  to  the  corrup- 
tion of  the  old  Adam,  293  ;  its  manifold  presence  possible,  because  the 
Body  of  God,  68,  110,  114  ;  pruhahle,  because  that  of  the  Second  Adam, 
69,  121 ;  could  not  be  present  everywhere,  113 ;  the  only  true  sacrifice, 
248  ;  a  perpetual  sacrifice,  248. 

Church,  necessity  of  belonging  to  it,  299 ;  built  up  by  Holy  Eucharist, 
290. 

Consecration,  the  essential  characteristic  of  Holy  Eucharist,  6  ;  witnessed 
by  the  ancient  Liturgies,  45  ;  why  not  more  dwelt  upon  by  English 
divines,  13 ;  implies  that  Christ's  presence  is  bestowed  through  the 
elements,  29,  62  ;  so  that  the  sacramentum  and  res  sacrantenti  always 
go  together,  84  ;  cannot  be  effected  save  by  a  priest,  8. 

Consistentes,  joined  in  the  Eucharistic  Sacrifice  without  communicating, 
333. 

Consubstantiation,  96. 

Cyril,  S.,  of  Alexandria,  importance  of  his  testimony,  186  ;  effect  of  his 
opposition  to  Nestorianism,  203. 

Elements,  said  to  be  chanrjed  by  ancient  writers,  50 ;  especially  by  the 
Greek  Fathers,  194,  195  ;  but  not  a  common  change,  196  ;  their  reality 
vindicated  by  Anti-Eutychians,  201  ;  their  power  of  nourishing  the 
body  of  the  receiver  not  lost,  199  ;  mediieval  errors  on  this  subject, 
200  ;  whole  Christ  bestowed  through  either  element,  58. 

Eucharist,  the  carrying  out  of  the  Incarnation,  71  ;  explained  in  three 
passages  of  Scripture,  127  ;  agreement  respecting  it  for  first  eight  centu- 
ries, 2  ;  how  spoken  of  by  five  schools  in  the  ancient  Church,  192  ;  con- 
secration its  essential  characteristic,  6  ;  how  differs  from  Baptism,  11, 
16  ;  objection  against  it  from  alleged  inutility,  77  ;  Christ  is  present  in 
it  by  reason  of  the  presence  of  His  Body,  123,  190,  283  ;  a  moral,  not  a 
physical  instrument,  14,  284  ;  bestowed  through  the  consecrated  ele- 
ments, 17  ;  its  benefits  not  attainable  without  faith,  288,  and  a  living 
union  with  Christ,  295  ;  why  called  a  sacrifice,  249  ;  identical  with 
that  on  the  Cross,  250  ;  corresponds  to  the  Jewish  sin-ottering,  253,  258  ; 
the  public  ritual  of  the  aijcient  Cliurch,  330  ;  the  Liturgy  solemnized 
at   Autioch,   252;    the    true    "daily  sacrifice,"   317,   offered   daily  in 


INDEX.  345 

the  age  of  the  Apostles,  305  ;  and  in  the  Primitive  Church,  306 — 10  ; 
daily  use  provided  for  in  Edward  Vlth's  first  Prayer-Book,  311,  but 
discouraged  by  the  Zuinglians,  and  by  Luther,  312  ;  carried  formerly 
to  the  sick,  55  ;  reserved  for  reception  at  home,  56,  or  in  Church,  57  ; 
received  fasting,  and  with  hands  crossed,  60. 

Facundus,  S.,  explained,  168. 

Fathers,  mean  by  Our  Lord's  presence  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  the  presence 
of  His  Body,  183  ;  say  that  Our  Lord's  Body  as  present  in  the  Holy 
Eucharist  ought  to  be  worshipped,  214,  and  that  it  is  received  by  all 
communicants,  218  ;  affirm  the  Holy  Eucharist  to  be  a  sacrifice,  262, 
263,  and  the  sacrifice  of  the  res  sacramenti,  269. 

Forgiveness  of  sins,  not  self-acquired,  298. 

Gospel  of  St.  John,  its  main  purpose,  128 ;  subjects  treated  in  its  sixth 
chapter,  132  ;  its  sixth  chapter  referred  to  Holy  Eucharist  by  ancient 
writers,  138,  and  by  all  the  earliest  commentators  on  Scripture,  144  ; 
other  interpretations  suggested  by  private  theories,  149. 

Hebrews,  Epistle  to,  253. 

Holy  Ghost,  proceeds  from  the  Father  and  the  Son,  225  ;   why  not  called 

a  Son,  232  ;  invoked  to  descend  upon  the  elements,  48,  241  ;  co-operates 

in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  234,  244. 
Hooker,  viewed  the  Holy  Eucharist  in  its  relation  to  the  Humanity  of 

Christ,  31. 

Identity,  its  various  kinds,  81. 

Invocation  of  the  Holy  Ghost  on  the  elements,  48,  241 ;  how  consistent 
with  the  efficacy  of  the  Words  of  Consecration,  244,  245. 

Johnson,  symbolized  with  the  Eastern  rather  than  the  Western  Church, 
221  ;  supposed  the  Holy  Eucharist  to  be  merely  a  concession  to  the 
prejudices  of  men,  77. 

Liturgies,  Ancient,  were  Eucharistic  offices,  332 ;  undervalued  in  the 
16th  century,  33  ;  their  antiquity,  33 — 41,  number,  41,  and  purpose, 
42 — 46  ;  their  testimony  to  the  Eucharistic  sacrifice,  264  ;  all  save  the 
Roman  contain  an  Invocation  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  241. 

Luther's  theory  of  justification  by  faith  incompatible  with  a  belief  in 
sacraments,  91,  and  interferes  with  the  Mediatorial  office  of  Our 
Lord,  259.  He  affirmed  the  reality,  but  denied  the  efficacy  of  the  Holy 
Eucharist,  92 ;  denied  the  Eucharistic  sacrifice,  259 ;  thought  that 
Christ  ought  to  be  worshipped  in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  211. 

Lutherans  have  adopted  the  Zuinglian  theory,  92. 

Missa  Sicca,  313. 

Moral  instrument,  what,  14. 

Mysteries,  how  far  to  be  inquired  into,  4. 

Origen  explained,  205. 


346  INDEX. 

Overall,  Bishop,  employed  the  phraseolo^  of  the  Schoolmen  in  the 
Catechism,  84 ;  regretted  that  the  Christian  sacrifice  was  discontinued 
because  of  the  absence  of  the  people,  314. 

Pantheism,  its  nature,  300 ;  safeguard  against  it  the  Doctrine  of  the  In- 
carnation, and  of  the  Sacraments,  302. 

Presence  of  Christ  in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  the  presence  of  His  Body,  118, 
123,  183,  292  ;  Calvin  supposed  it  to  be  merely  His  presence  by  power 
with  the  minds  of  men,  25  ;  Zuinglius  that  He  was  only  an  object  to 
men's  thoughts,  18,  161 ;  called  a  mystery  by  the  Fathers,  162,  163. 

Presence  by  virtue,  may  be  understood  as  though  nearly  equivalent  to 
essential  presence,  173,  24,  118 ;  which  would  be  as  great  a  mystery  as 
real  presence,  173. 

Priesthood,  its  especial  commission  to  consecrate  Holy  Eucharist,  8. 

Real  Presence,  the  belief  that  Christ's  Body  is  the  res  sacramenti,  or  thituj 
signified,  107,  as  taught  in  the  Catechism,  117 ;  distinguished  from 
Symbolical  or  Virtual  presence,  125,  182 ;  its  test  the  worship  of 
Christ,  as  present  under  the  form  of  bread  and  wine,  211. 

Reprobation,  an  essential  part  of  Calvin's  system,  29. 

Rubric  respecting  kneeling  at  the  Holy  Eucharist,  how  explained,  212. 

Saicramental  identity,  analogous  to,  but  not  the  same  with  personal,  81,  201. 

Sacraments,  Zuinglius  denied  them  to  convey  grace,  20  ;  their  true  purpose 
is  to  make  obsignation  to  each  individual,  104,  282. 

Sacramentum  and  Res  Sacramenti,  distinguished  by  St.  Augustin,  84, 
205,  make  up  one  whole,  82  ;  so  that  all  who  receive  one,  receive  the 
other,  157,  218  ;  terms  which  are  applicable  to  the  one,  applied  by  the 
ancient  writers  to  the  other,  171 ;  both  included  in  the  Eucharistic 
Sacrifice,  265,  278. 

Sacrifice  of  Holy  Eucharist,  "the  daily  sacrifice,"  317  ;  that  of  the  Body 
of  Christ,  248,  269 ;  identical  with  that  on  the  Cross,  250,  271  ;  awful, 
273  ;  efficacious,  273 ;  typified  by  Jewish  sacrifices,  274  ;  a  reality, 
275  ;  offered  for  the  dead,  281 ;  not  admissible  on  Zuinglian  or  Calvi- 
nistic  theory,  246,  262  ;  requires  belief  in  Real  Presence,  258  ;  depen- 
dent on  Mediation  of  Christ,  247,  280  ;  why  rejected  by  Luther,  259  ; 
includes  the  offering  of  the  sacramentum  or  memorial,  as  well  as  that 
of  the  reality  or  res  sacramenti,  265  ;  includes  the  offering  of  the  Church 
as  Christ's  Body,  277  ;  cannot  be  shared  except  by  those  who  are  in 
communion,  329  ;  but  a  benefit  in  itself,  independently  of  the  act  of 
communicating,  280,  340  ;  this  mode  of  employing  it  forbidden  for  the 
first  time  by  the  Zuinglians,  312  ;  but  not  forbidden  by  our  present 
Prayer- Book,  315  ;  and  practised  in  early  Church,  323. 

vSacrifices  of  Law,  their  various  kinds,  255  ;  did  not  require  to  be  eaten 
by  any  but  the  priest  who  otl'ered  them,  320. 

Scripture,  how  interpreted,  2,  4,  261. 

Substance,  its  different  meanings  in  Roman  and  English  Tlieology,  90, 
210  ;  not  an  object  of  sense  according  to  the  Aristoteli.in  philosophy, 
90  ;  not  supposed  by  Aquinas  to  be  so  far  changed,  as  that  the  elements 
cease  to  be  nutritive,  209. 


INDEX.  347 

Tertullian  explained,  9,  166. 

Transubstantiation,  not  inquired  into  in  this  work,  4,  210. 

Trinity,  the  Persons  how  discriminated,  222,  227  ;  their  relations  to  one 
another  independent  of  time,  236  ;  Aquinas's  suggestion  respecting 
their  number,  236  ;  effect  of  St.  Augustin's  treatise  as  fixing  double 
Procession,  225  ;  the  Second  Person,  why  Incarnate,  229. 

Virtual,  not  real,  presence  of  Christ's  Body  in  Baptism,  187,  190. 

Virtue,  and  virtual,  equivocal  terms,  99,  175. 

Virtus  sacramenti  discriminated  from  the  res  sacramenti  in  our  Catechism, 

84,  and  by  the  school  of  St.  Augustin,  207  ;  not  attained  by  all  who 

receive  the  res  sacramenti,  158. 

Waterland's  theory  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  Zuinglian,  31,  155  ;  his  inter- 
pretation of  St.  John  vi.,  143  ;  he  defends  the  Eucharistic  sacrifice  by 
explaining  it  away,  262,  and  supposes  the  notion  of  a  real  sacrifice  to 
have  been  introduced  in  St.  Cyprian's  time,  267. 

Words  of  Institution,  consist  of  three  parts,  6  ;  effective,  and  not  exegetical, 
46  ;  their  consecrating  efficacy  not  superseded  by  the  Invocation  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  244  ;  to  what  Hoc  refers,  6,  84. 

Worship  in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  paid  not  to  the  sacramentum,  but  the  res 
sacramenti,  215. 

Zuinglius's  theory  rests  the  gift  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  exclusively  on  the 
disposition  of  the  receiver,  19  ;  he  denied  that  grace  was  communicated 
through  sacraments,  20  ;  his  system  leads  to  Sabellianism,  21  ;  he  ex- 
cluded the  res  sacramenti,  85,  and  therefore  could  not  maintain  that 
the  Holy  Eucharist  was  really  beneficial,  124. 


LIBRARY   OF    THE    FATHERS 

OF    THE 

HOLY  CATHOLIC  CHURCH,  ANTERIOR  TO  THE 
DIVISION  OF  THE  EAST  AND  WEST. 

Translated    by    Members     of    the    English    Church. 


S.  ATHANASIUS  AGAINST  THE  ARIANS.     1  vol.    10s.  6d. 

HISTORICAL  TRACTS.    ,    ,  „     ^  , 

FESTAL  EPISTLES. 


LATER  TREATISES.     5s. 

S.  AUGUSTINE'S  CONFESSIONS,  with  Notes.  6s. 

SERMONS     ON     THE     NEW     TESTAMENT. 

2  vols.    15s. 

HOMILIES  ON  THE  PSALMS.     6  vols.     21.  2s. 

ON  THE  GOSPEL  AND  FIRST  EPISTLE  OF 


S.  JOHN.    2  vols.    15s. 
PRACTICAL  TREATISES.     7s.  6d. 


S.  AMBROSE— LETTERS.     9s. 

S.  CHRYSOSTOM'S   HOMILIES   ON  THE   GOSPEL   OF   S.  MAT- 
THEW.   3  vols.    11.  Is. 

HOMILIES   ON   THE  GOSPEL   OF  S.  JOHN. 

2  vols.    14s. 

HOMILIES    ON'  THE   ACTS    OF   THE    APO- 


STLES.   2  vols.    12s. 
TO  THE  PEOPLE  OF  ANTIOCH.     7s.  6(Z. 


HOMILIES  ON  S.  PAUL'S  EPISTLES,  IN- 
CLUDING THE  HOMILIES  ON  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HE- 
BREWS.   7  vols.    21.  12s.  6d. 

S.     CYPRIAN'S     TREATISES     AND     EPISTLES,     WITH     THE 

TREATISES  OF  S.  PACIAN.    lOs. 
S.  CYRIL  (Bishop  of  Jerusalem),  CATECHETICAL  LECTURES  ON 

THE  CREED  AND  SACRAMENTS.    7s. 
S.  CYRIL  (Archbishop  of  Alexandria),  COMMENTARY  UPON  THE 

GOSPEL  OF  S.  JOHN.    Vol.  I.    8s.    Vol.  II.  (Now  Ready). 
THE  FIVE   BOOKS   AGAINST  NESTORIUS,  TOGETHER  WITH 

THE  SCHOLIA  ON  THE  INCARNATION.    6s. 
S.    EPHREM'S     RHYTHMS     ON    THE    NATIVITY,    AND    ON 

FAITH.    8s.  Gd. 
S.  GREGORY  THE  GREAT,   MORALS  ON  THE  BOOK  OF  JOB. 

4  vols.    1/.  lis.  6fZ. 
S.  IREN^US,  THE  WORKS  OF.     8s. 
S.  JUSTIN  THE  MARTYR.     Works  now  extant.     6s. 

TERTULLIAN'S  APOLOGETICAL  AND  PRACTICAL  TREA- 
TISES.   9s. 

Complete  Sets,  consisting  of  44  Volumes,  Price  £1Q.  16s.  Od. 


London:  WALTER  SMITH  Oate  Mozley),  34,  King  Street,  Covent  Garden. 


WORKS  OF  THE  LATE  REV.  E.  B.  PUSEY,  D.D. 

PAROCHIAL  SERMONS.     3  vols.  8vo.,  cl.,  6g.  each. 

PAROCHIAL   SERMONS,    preached   on  Various    Occasions.      1832— 

1850.    8vo.,  cloth,  G«. 
PAROCHIAL  and  CATHEDRAL  SERMONS.     8vo.,  cloth,  6«. 
UNIVERSITY  SERMONS.    Vol.  L,  preached  chiefly  between  1843— 

1S;55.    With  Preface.    Svo.,  cloth;  6s. 
UNIVERSITY  SERMONS.    Vol.  II.,  preached  chiefly  between  1859— 

1872.    With  Preface.    8vo.,  cloth,  68. 
UNIVERSITY    SERMONS.      Vol.    III.,     preached    chiefly    between 

1S64— 1879.    With  a  Sermon  at  the  opening  of  Keble  College  Chapel,  on 

St.  Mark's  Day,  1876.    Svo.,  cloth,  68. 
The    MINOR    PROPHETS;    with    a   COMMENTARY,    Explanatory 

and  Practical,  and  Introductions  to  the  several  Books.    One  Volume,  4to., 

£1.  Us.  6d. 

The  foUoicvid  may  still  he  had  separalelii: — 


Part  IV.-Mir.\H  i.  13  to  HABAK- 
KUK.  INTRODUCTION.    5s. 

v.— HABAKKUK,       ZEPHA- 
NIAH,  HAGGAI.    5s. 


Part    I.-HOREA,    .TOEL,    INTRO- 
DUCTION.  5s. 

II.— JOEI..  INTRODUCTION- 
AMOS  vi.  6.    5*. 

III.-AMOS   vi.  7  to  MICrVH  i. 

12.    5s. 

DANIEL,  THE  PROPHET.  Nine  Lectures  delivered  in  the  Divinity 
School  of  the  University  of  Oxloid.  With  Copious  Notes.  Seventh  Edition. 
1880.   8vo.,  cloth,  10s.  6(/. 


YL— ZECHAEIAH,        MALA- 

CHI.    6s. 


8vo.,  cloth,  6s.  each. 
SERMONS  FOR  THE  CHRISTIAN  YEAR.     By  the  late  Rev.  JOHN 
KEBLE,  Author  of  "  The  Christian  Year.'" 


Vol.      I.-ADVENTtoCHEISTMAS. 
II.— t'HRISTMAS     and     EPI- 
PHANY. 
III.-SEPTUAGESIMA. 
IV.— LENT  to  PASSION-TIDE. 
With  Preface  to  the  Series 
by  Dr.  Pusev. 
V.-HOLY  WEEK. 


Vol.      VI.— EASTER      to      ASCEN- 
SION-DAY. 
VII.— ASCENSION- D.VY       to 
TRINITY-SUNDAY. 
VIII.  (  The  SUNDAYS  AFTER 
IX.\     TRINITY.    Two  Vols. 
X.-SAINTS"  DAYS. 
XI.— MISCELLANEOUS. 


JOHN  KEBLE— "A  DAILY  TEXT-BOOK."  Gathered  from  the 
■•  Sermons  for  the  Christian  Year."  By  E.  H.  and  F.  H.  With  a  Preface 
by  the  Rev.  I'ETER  YOUNG,  M.A.,  Rector  of  North  Witham.  Siiuare 
Itimo.,  cloth,  with  red  lines,  Ss. ;  limp  purple  morocco,  red  and  gilt  edges, 
10s.  6c;. 

Fourth  Thousand. 

A  DAILY  TEXT-BOOK.  Gathered  from  the  Writings  of  the  Rev. 
EDWARD  BOUVERIE  PUSEY,  D.D  ,  Oxford,  late  Canon  of  Clirist  Cliurch, 
and  Kefrius  Professor  of  Hebrew.  By  K.  11.  and  F.  II.  With  Fnfaie  by  the 
Kev.  EDWARD  KING,  D.D.,  Canon  of  Clirist  Clnirch,  and  Keirius  Professor 
of  Pastoral  Theology.  Sqnare  16mo.,  cloth,  printed  on  toned  paper,  with  red 
lines,  38.  6ti. ;  limp  purple  morocco,  red  and  irilt  tdnes,  10s.  6ti. 


18mo.,  limp  cloth,  price  Is.  6</.  each. 
PRAYERS,   PENITENCE,   AND  HOLY  COMMUNION.     Gathered 
from  the  Writings  of  the    Rev.  EDWARD   BOUVERIE   I'USEV,  D  D. 
Toirether  in  One  Vol.,  bevelled  boaids,  red  edges,  48.  Gd. ;  also  in  limp  purple 
morocco,  red  and  gilt  edges,  Wn.  6(/. 


London :  WALTER  SMITH  (late  Mozley),  34,  King  Street,  Coveut  Uardun. 


By  the  late  Canon  ASHWELL,  M.A. 
LENT     LECTURES     ON     THE     HOLY     CATHOLIC     CHURCH. 

Delivered  at  St.  Peter's  Church,  Eaton  Square.    Second  Edition.    Crown 
8vo.,  3s.  6 J. 
SEPTUAGESIMA    LECTURES.      Delivered    in    the    Church    of   All 
Saints,  Margaret  Street.    Fcap.  8vo.,  2s. 

By  GEORGE  EDWARD  JELF,  M.A.,  Canon  of  Rochester, 

and  Vicar  of  St.  Mary's,  Chatham. 

THE  CONSOLATIONS  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  SEASONS. 

Part   I.    ADVENT  to  EASTER.    Crown  8vo.,  6s. 

Part  II.    ASCENSIONTIDE  to  ALL  SAINTS'.    Crown  8vo.,  6s. 

THE    SECRET    TRIALS    OF    THE    CHRISTIAN    LIFE.      Seventh 

Thousand.    Crown  8vo  ,  5s. 
MAKE   UP   FOR   LOST   TIME.     Third  Edition.     Crown  8vo.,  4s. 


PAROCHIAL  SERMONS.     By  the  Rev.  GREVILLE  PHILLIMORE, 

late  Student  of  Christ  Church,  Oxon.    Crown  8vo.,  3s.  6d. 
PAROCHIAL    SERMONS.      By   the    Rev.  WM.  JACKSON,  M.A., 

Vicar  of  Heathfield.    Crown  8vo.,  3s.  6d. 
"  These  Sermons  ai-e  of  a  higli  order  of  merit,  and  are  written  with  much  force  and 
power.  .  .  .  Practical  in  their  aim,  earnest  and  fervent  in  their  spirit,  faithful  in  tlieir 
teaching,  they  are  well  adapted  for  an  intelligent  congregation  or  for  the  pi'ivate  read- 
ing of  both  clergy  and  laity."— National  Cliutx-h. 

OCCASIONAL  SERMONS  SELECTED   FROM  PUBLISHED  SER- 
MONS of  the  Rev.  E.  B.  PUSEY,  D.D.,  late  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  and 
Eegius  Professor  of  Hebrew.    With  a  Preface  by  the  Rev.  E.  F.  WILSON, 
Vicar  of  Rownhams,  and  Canon  of  Salisbury.    Crown  8vo.,  6s. 
"  They  are  perhaps  even  better  to  read  than  to  hear,  for  they  are  so  closely  packed 

witli  thought,  learning,  and  precept,  that  they  must  have  been  hard  to  follow,  though 

the  homeliness  and  simplicity  of  the  style  are  admirably  suited  for  exhortation  and 

admonition."— 6'u(«»'da//  Review. 

FIRST  SUCCESSORS  OF  THE  HOLY  APOSTLES  IN  THE  CHRIS- 
TIAN CHURCH.  Memorials  and  Writings  Compiled  by  G.  MILNE 
HOME.    Crown  8vo.,  3s.  M. 

SPIRITUAL  READINGS  FROM   JEREMY  DREXELIUS.     Trans- 
lated by  the  Author  of  "CHARLES  LOWDEE."    Edited  by  the  Rev. 
WILLIAM  H.  CLEAVER.    Crown  8vo.,  2s.  6d. 
"We  have  rarely  met  with  a  more  invaluable  and  original  series  of  readings."— 

Ecclesiastical  Ga:.ette. 

READINGS  FROM  THE  WRITINGS  OF  JOHN  KEBLE,  M.A., 
and  the  Rev.  E.  B.  PUSEY,  D.D.  Selected  and  Arranged  by  C.  M.  S.  Post 
8vo.,  cloth,  3s. 

Edited  by  the  Rev.  W.  JACKSON,  M.A.,  Oxon.,  Vicar  of  Heathfield,  Sussex. 
STORIES  AND  LESSONS   ON   THE    CATECHISM— WITH   THE 
FIRST-CLASS  GIRLS  AT  FOELEY. 
Vol.      I.— To  the  End  of  the  Belief.    Fcap.  8vo.,  cloth,  5s. 
Vol.    II. — To  the  End  of  the  Lord's  Prayer.    Fcap.  8vo.,  cloth,  5s. 
Vol.  III. — The  Sacraments.    Fcap.  8vo.,  cloth,  4s. 
STORIES   AND   CATECHISINGS    ON   THE   COLLECTS;    OR,   A 
YEAR  WITH  THE  FIRST-CLASS  BOYS  AT  FOELEY. 
Vol.      I. — From  Advent  to  Easter-Tuesday.    Fcap.  8vo.,  cloth,  4s. 
Vol.    II. — From  First  Sunday  after  Easter  to  Twenty-Fifth  after  Trinity. 

Fcap.  8vo  ,  cloth,  5s. 
Vol.  III.— The  Saints'  Days.    Fcap.  8vo.,  cloth,  3s.  Qd. 


London :  WALTER  SMITH  (late  Mozley),  34,  King  Street,  Covent  Garden. 


UNIFORM  ^?VITH  THIS  VOLUME. 
BY   THE  SAME   AUTHOR. 

THE   DOCTEINE   OF  THE  INCAENATION   OF 
Oim  LORD  JESUS  CHRIST. 

New  Edition,  irrice  7s.  Qd. 


-€■■' 


■«* 


Date  Due                          1 

W!ll]pki«»- 

1-^' 

^■ 

wi  zi  n 

NOV  29  7 

1 

'1M     ^71 

FEB    fiH 

lAft     87? 

M»iil  "'f'^ 

«. 

■^r     1  r 

|- 

-^^  1 '  -jj 

- 

^g^f^ 

iiLiiiii^'Tr- 

f) 

